You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As part of the production of SRPMs, RPM injects the C/C++ compiler flags into the Optflags tag and a processed spec file into the Spec tag.
As we can't reasonably use the Optflags and Spec tags effectively for builds and it creates issues when noarch packages are built on different host architectures, would it be possible to make these fields empty? That way there's less weird content to deal with when verifying reproducibility and we can save some space on package header generation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
There's reproducability and there's reproducability. Without the contents of the RPMTAG_SPEC, you may have matching hashes but you have absolutely no clue whether you've reproduced the parse. Optflags is similar, although for noarch packages those are kinda moot.
So no, RPMTAG_SPEC is not going away. It was just introduced, and it has already proven quite useful, for one to diagnose build issues in ways that were previously simply impossible.
On the contrary, ability to rebuild from RPMTAG_SPEC without reparsing the original spec, (and with macro expansion disabled) would be a neat thing to have, for reproducability.
I symphatize with wanting a more reproducable source archive format, but cannibalizing the existing src.rpm is not the way to do get that.
As part of the production of SRPMs, RPM injects the C/C++ compiler flags into the
Optflags
tag and a processed spec file into theSpec
tag.As we can't reasonably use the
Optflags
andSpec
tags effectively for builds and it creates issues whennoarch
packages are built on different host architectures, would it be possible to make these fields empty? That way there's less weird content to deal with when verifying reproducibility and we can save some space on package header generation.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: