SRPM output (continuation of #1657) #1952
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jordansissel
force-pushed
the
issue/237
branch
from
5ea7162 to
1d076ea
Compare
* Modify RPM build process to generate and collect SRPM and RPM artifacts by default * Create a spec file that will allow for a natural `rpmbuild --rebuild <thing>.src.rpm` approach * Ensure that required components are present in the RPM spec file * At this time, not feature flagged. If users don't want the src.rpm output, they simply don't have to use it. Closes #237
* Remove deprecated Buildroot option from the RPM template
When building an rpm with rpmbuild, the default cpu architecture seems to be the host cpu. However, fpm's default architecture is what rpm calls `noarch`, so to achieve this, I found that we need to set the _target_cpu value to the same one used by fpm and the same that we would use for the `--target` rpmbuild flag.
This avoids copying files from one temporary path (staging_path) to another path rpmbuild build path. This doesn't necessarily solve any particular bug. I thought this copying appeared a bit unnecessary and tried using the staging_path as the _builddir. It seems to work :) The code history was that the rpm spec %install section was copying the files. Then, in PR #552, fpm copies files into rpm's build dir and the %install was made a no-op. As of this commit, no extra copying happens.
This reduces the lines of code used to generate the source tarball.
jordansissel
force-pushed
the
issue/237
branch
from
1d076ea to
69d71dd
Compare
|
@trevor-vaughan Hello again! I'm open to however you'd like to handle this. We can discuss here or if you prefer back over on the fpm PR you filed. Changes from your PR:
The fpm test suite for rpm passes ✅ Testing expectations, I would expect fpm and Testing this: Cool. So far so good. Both filenames are the same and Checksums for both rpms match (if we exclude 'Build Date'). Nice! Checking file lists: File names listing are identical There's timestamp differences on the files, but that might also be due to external clock aka build time variables. |
Open
|
@jordansissel |
This is for cases like `fpm -p hello.rpm` and it seems like we'd want the srpm named "hello.src.rpm" instead of whatever was generated by rpmbuild. I don't know if this will make things less confusing, but I hope it will make things more predictable :)
This flag allows a user to ask for an SRPM in addition to the binary rpm. This also adds fallback case if the file extension seems weird. That is, if someone asks for a package file named "foobar" then fpm will also output an SRPM named "foobar.src.rpm" in addition to the rpm file named "foobar"
jordansissel
force-pushed
the
issue/237
branch
from
8edb1f8 to
7ced3f1
Compare
Otherwise, built just the binary rpm
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Continuation of #1657 from @trevor-vaughan's work.