[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make rpm builds more reproducible (Issue #2590)

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

> I'm also aware that if you run `rpmbuild -bs .....spec` there's no binary build process going on so I'd guess it's quite possible that macro definitions and installed package lists may not actually be useful. However, if you build source and binary packages together, which I'd assume is the correct thing to do, e.g. `rpmbuild -ba <optional extra macro definitions> whatever.spec` then you will have the information needed and could save this inside the `src.rpm`.

"correct thing to do" is a matter of opinion. An easier question is whether this is what always happens, and it's easy to answer: no, in some workflows people receive an srpm from somewhere and build that. See for example the (now obsolete) workflow for CentOS: RH would publish rebranded srpm and various projects would rebuild them, treating the srpm as the initial input.

In general, the macros that are defined during srpm build and the macros that are defined during binary build can be completely different.

See https://pagure.io/koji/issue/3878 for a slightly different approach to this problem.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2590#issuecomment-1667459110
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2590/1667459110 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20230807/2b9190ad/attachment.html>