On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:56:35 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:39:22 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:32:00 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
- I'd put %check after %install rather than after %clean, so that builds
on rpm versions not supporting %check could still work.
Does order of spec sections matter? (I don't think so)
Current rpm versions run the %check scriptlet after %install, if %check
is present.
Regardless of where I put %check inside the spec? I can move the %files
section at the top of the spec. Could I do the same with %check or
%clean? ;)
Try rearranging them and see.
Older rpm versions don't understand %check, and will barf when they come
across it.
That was not the questions.
If instead you have:
%install
...
%clean
...
%check || :
...
then old versions of rpm
How old?
rpm 4.0.something I think. Well before the dawn of Fedora. So for a spec
file tailored for Extras, none of this matters. However, it's perfectly
possible to write spec files that will build just fine on really old Red
Hat Linuxes, and still meet Extras packaging guidelines. Obviously most
people won't want to bother with that, and that's OK, but if they're not
bothered about backwards compatibility, there's no need for the "|| :"
after %check - and that's all my original comment was about in the review.
No, actually (as can be seen in the quote at the very top of this mail)
you suggested reordering %install and %check. Here:
- I'd put %check after %install rather than after %clean, so that builds
on rpm versions not supporting %check could still work.
I've never before payed attention to this. Hence my interest in
the rationale for such a recommendation. And I'm still confused. Does
it matter where to put the %check section in a spec?
[I'm aware of "%check || :" from fedora.us times and multi-dist src.rpms,
that are supposed to build on RHL 7.3, too, e.g.]