CentOS - Feb 2017 - Would this be considered a packaging bug?

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?

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?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20170225/015a8485/attachment-0001.sig>

> On Feb 25, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Alice Wonder <alice at domblogger.net>
wrote:
> 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.

It could be that the packagers did not want the patches distributed with the
RHEL source packages as well (maybe something licensing related?  Or not
distributable as part of RHEL?).  I agree that its annoying because you can?t
take the RHEL srpm and rebuild on Fedora.

--
Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>

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...