[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild is duplicating OS name in rpm package names when conditional dist tag is in spec file (Discussion #2397)

[RachChoTra]

I am new to building rpm packages, and my problem is very similiar to this unix stack exchange: 
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/538458/why-is-my-rpmbuild-dist-fc30-fc30-instead-of-just-fc30

The problem is there's no answer to that question.

I am using rpmbuild -ba directly with no wrapper, just like the other user. I did not redefine any variables, and there is no %define inside the spec file. 

I'm on fedora 35, and spec file looks like:

Name:           somefile
Version:        1.0.0
Release:        %{release}%{?dist}

Which produces an rpm called:
somefile-1.0.0-1.fc35.fc35.noarch.rpm

Just like the unix stack exchange question, the value of %{dist}, according to rpm is just .fc35, as expected:

$ rpm --eval %{dist}
.fc35

And again, if I redefine the release, as something different, for example:

Name:           somefile
Version:        1.0.0
Release:        1.123

This gave me a file: somefile-1.0.0-1.123.123.noarch.rpm

The dist macro is defined as %{?distprefix}.fc35%{?with_bootstrap:~bootstrap}

Is the bootstrap function adding an additional os name to the rpm? I am currently using rpm version 16, therefore would a possible solution be to update to version 17 and add %bcond bootstrap 0 to the spec file to disable the bootstrap function? 

As per the information in:
https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/conditionalbuilds.html

Hopefully, this question makes sense, as I said I'm still very new to building and packaging rpms. 



-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2397
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/repo-discussions/2397 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20230222/97eb62b4/attachment.html>