Re: Doubts about nested %if in spec file

[James Olin Oden <joden lee k12 nc us>]

> 
> 
> On Thu, 30 May 2002 12:26:46 -0500 (EST), James Olin Oden
> <joden@lee.k12.nc.us> wrote :
> 
> > You could implement as you assume to wrap the script in an appropriately named
> > tag, but I think it would be better for the script tags to actualy point to
> > an external file.  In this way you could even specify an interpreter.  For 
> > example:
> > 
> > 	<postinstall interpreter="/usr/bin/perl">postinstall.pl</postinstall>
> 
> I've been thinking about this. With my limited knowledge of other packaging
> attempts (eg. deb, ebuild for Gentoo) I seem to remember that that is the
> approach they've taken - different files for the actual scripts. This does
> however, add moreresponsibility on the packager in that he has to maintain
> more than one file. 
> 
> Getting a resounding "yes" vote on this might be difficult, but is seems
> like the cleanest solution.
>
Its also the way that System V packages work.  If this approach was taken 
though, you would not necessarily have to force the scriptlet to always 
exist outside of the spec file, its just safer if the person opts to do that.
Also, I really don't by that its easier to only maintain one file.  I tend
to think keeping it all in one file tends to lead to confusion and 
convoluted code as you are tryting to escape thing.  Even in the current 
rpm you have to watch out for the unintentional macro.  

...james