Needed: An easier way to build a subset of kernel packages

[Chuck Ebbert]

Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:06:58PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>  > Dave Jones wrote:
>>  > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>>  > >  > I was thinking about adding something like this to the .spec file
>>  > >  > at the beginning:
>>  > >  > 
>>  > >  > %define allowup 1
>>  > >  > %define allowsmp 1
>>  > >  > %define allowpae 1
>>  > >  > %define allowxen 1
>>  > >  > %define allowdoc 1
>>  > >  > %define allowdump 1
>>  > >  > %define allowheaders 1
>>  > >  > %define allowdebug 1
>>  > >  > 
>>  > >  > Then, after all the automatic enable/disable of various options is done,
>>  > >  > turn off everything that's not allowed.
>>  > >  > 
>>  > >  > This would make it much easier to change what gets built.
>>  > > 
>>  > > The amount of %define's we've grown recently does seem to be
>>  > > getting out of hand. I'm not sure it's a good/bad thing, but it
>>  > > does make the spec a little harder to read.
>>  > > 
>>  > > Not sure about your proposal tbh.  I'll think about it more
>>  > > when I'm back from vacation :)
>>  > 
>>  > I like it, at least in theory. Invariably, I'll do a test build, and to
>>  > speed the process, I twiddle bits at the top of the spec to disable
>>  > certain builds. In the i686 case, I almost always forget to hunt down
>>  > lower to turn off pae.
>>
>>
>> But I've not objection to making it easier for people who don't follow
>> my workflow and do things differently.
> 
> Rather than wasting Chuck's time implementing this, what say a
> lower-level grunt like myself try to implement something along these
> lines? :) I've got a few ideas on how to do it using either %bcond or
> %with{,out}...
> 

You understand rpm better than I do, so go for it. I'd use Dave's method
but an RPM is so much more convenient...