On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:27:16PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 10/28/20 9:47 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 7:49 AM Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/27/20 1:06 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 6:24 AM Michal Privoznik
<mprivozn(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 10/26/20 11:08 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > > Contemporary versions of Fedora automatically set
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
> > > > > based on the changelog entry date stamp. In scenarios where it
already
> > > > > is defined, we do not want to redefine it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This part is okay.
> > > >
> > > > > Additionally, when building the libvirt package in an Open Build
Service
> > > > > instance, the spec file is not present in %_specdir, but instead
in %_sourcedir.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > But this looks fishy. Is the %_specdir defined in that case?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It is (that comes from RPM itself), however the directory is empty.
> >
> > That feels like a bug in OBS then. IIUC this macro can be specified on
> > the rpmbuild's cmd line. Can't it set the %_specdir to be the same as
> > %_sourcedir?
> >
>
> Nothing about RPM mandates that %_specdir is actually *used* for anything.
>
But this is not the case, is it? %_specdir is defined and points to an
actual directory. Having said that, I am not against the change, but maybe
we can document this weirdness somewhere? Also, with the latest specfile
discussion I'll let Andrea take a look.
I'm inclined to just delete all the source epoch stuff from the spec and
rely on the build environment set it if they want reproducable builds.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|