Re: "#include" equivalent in spec files?

[Frank Cusack <fcusack fcusack com>]

Maybe for some specific case of a trivial rpm, but it's extremely likely
that for some arbitrary rpm you'd need to get some -devel or other dependent
package anyway.

If you're not using yum/apt I guess it doesn't matter since your environment
is fairly basic anyway.  If you are using yum/apt this simply isn't a concern.

-frank

On July 13, 2006 2:54:16 PM -0400 Jonathan Reed <jdreed MIT EDU> wrote:
> Because adding it as a %Source ensures that it will be in the SRPM,  as opposed to simply listing
> it as a BuildPreReq, which requires that  you go get it from somewhere, and makes rpmbuild
> --rebuild a trivial  one-step process.
>
>
> On Jul 13, 2006, at 2:35 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
>
> > On July 13, 2006 12:58:54 PM -0400 Jonathan Reed <jdreed MIT EDU>
> > wrote:
> > > I think it's poor form to make some random macro package a
> > > requirement to rebuild an RPM.
> >
> > And how is that different than %include'ing an arbitrary macro
> > file, whose
> > versioning you know even less of than if it were an rpm package?
> >
> > -frank
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rpm-list mailing list
> > Rpm-list redhat com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-list mailing list
> Rpm-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list