On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 03:32:23PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Thu, 2021-03-11 at 13:26 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 02:00:55PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > On Thu, 2021-03-11 at 12:33 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > Sure it would be nice if there was a meson extension that dealt
> > > with SELinux, but we need to implement something that works with
> > > the meson releases that exist today. If meson gains selinux
> > > support in future may be we can consider it then.
> >
> > We still need make for syntax-check though, so rewriting the SELinux
> > bits to Meson doesn't allow us to drop the dependency. And,
> > considering how complex and widely used the syntax-check logic is, I
> > don't see that being reimplemented anytime soon.
>
> That's only part of the test suite, and we don't even include
> syntax-check if not running from git, because it is only targetted
> at upstream maintainers. So that's quite different from including
> use of make in the primary build process. That is just not ok IMHO.
Mh, fair enough. I guess we can drop
BuildRequires: make
from our .spec files then... I'll post a patch right away.
Our RPMs build with a .git present, so they'll run syntax-checks even
downstream.
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 :|