On 02/25/2017 06:12 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 02/25/2017 06:52 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=861692 >> >> The source RPM there uses >> >> %if 0%{?rhel} >> # not upstreamed >> Patch500: 0001-disable-libe-book-support.patch >> Patch501: 0001-fix-build-of-bundled-libzmf-with-boost-1.56.patch >> Patch502: 0001-allow-to-build-bundled-libzmf-on-aarch64.patch >> Patch503: 0001-impl.-missing-function.patch >> %endif >> >> (and more than just those) resulting in those patches not being included >> in the src.rpm because the rpm was not built on rhel/centos. >> >> My understanding was that platform specific patches were suppose to have >> the %if macro where the patch is applied, but should not be where the >> source for the patch is defined. >> >> Been a long time since I was a fedora packager so I don't know what >> current packaging guidelines are, but that just seems wrong. >> >> Is it wrong? > > It depends .. in the Red Hat world, this is used so that patches are > applied on RHEL but not on Fedora. That is the purpose of that patch. > The RHEL team added something to that patch for RHEL that is different > than Fedora. > > So, if built on Fedora, those patches are not installed. Why would that > be a problem? > > Ouch, looking through the spec file it appears that it doesn't use the normal %patch mechanism to apply patches. Looks like a change in RPM itself that I am not very fond of. It appears to use a git command to apply patches from some kind of a patch macro, and apparently with sources too. It's just my opinion but I am becoming less and less fond of RPM - just like I became less and less fond of GNOME which I use to really love. Guess I now know how dad felt when all the AIX servers he managed started switching to that new-fangled Linux operating system...