Re: RPM packaging with SCons

On 2/20/22 12:33, Werner Reisberger wrote:
> On 2022-02-20 16:51, Mats Wichmann wrote:
> 
>> SCons includes two rpm things - the packager and the tool. The packager,
>> called through the Package builder, which attempts to construct a
>> specfile first, indeed seems a little flimsy, but the tool, which sets
>> up the Rpm builder, doesn't seem to do much more than your suggestion -
>> call rpmbuild given a .tar.gz.   For reasons not clear to me, there is
>> no documentation entry for the Rpm builder - nor are there any direct
>> tests of it. Odd (note: we should do something about that).
>>
>> Anyway - have you looked at the Rpm builder?  Would it work in your
>> decoupled scenario?
> 
> Yes, I looked at it but it seems to be rather inflexible. E.g. you
> cannot easily change the way a RPM should be build. It expects that
> rpmbuild gets a tar file with an included spec file. It then builds a
> source and a binary RPM because it runs with the "-ta" option. I may be
> able to alter this to "-tb" to build only a binary package but it looks
> that it limits the processing to this two options because the expected
> source is defined by the get_cmd(source, env) function. It also
> specifies where the temporary path for rpmbuild is created.
> 
> Basically I have no idea how I could call this tool and interface with
> it out of a SConscript.

I'd like to move/copy this to a "discussion" on github so we don't lose
track of it.  any objections?
_______________________________________________
Scons-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users