Re: Doubts about nested %if in spec file

["Jaco Greeff" <jaco puxedo org>]

On Thu, 30 May 2002 15:49:25 -0400, Jeff Johnson <jbj@redhat.com> wrote :
> Actually the interpreter needs to be separately distinguished as
> 	<interpreter>/sbin/ldconfig</interpreter>

Somebody else has mentioned something (staying with my current syntax) in
the order of;

<post>
  <script interpreter="/bin/sh">/sbin/ldconfig</script>
...
</post>

Maybe not the best example, but at least the idea is there - execute the
script using the provided interpreter.

> > <files>
> > <file attr="777" uid="rpm" gid="rpm">/var/lib/whatever</file>
> 
> I'd attempt to abstract common info somehow, as that's right for
> the majority of files, there's a great deal of redundancy that
> can/should lead to compact expression in XML. 

I've really haven't optimised too much currently, but rather, at present
have and almost one to one mapping (spec -> xml). Let's just see if I
understand the abstraction of common info. For a %files section, something
may be written as

%files
%defattr(755,root,root)
/var/lib/one
%attr(777,-,-) /var/lib/two
%attr(-,rpm,rpm) /var/lib/three

The current implementation allows for some abstaction, eg. you don't have to
specify all the stuff for each file. As such the above can be directly
translated to;

<files attr="755" uid="root" gid="root">
  <file>/var/lib/one</file>
  <file attr="777">/var/lib/two</file>
  <file uid="rpm" gid="rpm">/var/lib/three</file>  
</files>
 
Is this more or less what you had in mind? It doesn't give you more than
rpm, but neither does it do anything less. In this specxific example I found
the spec syntax not much of a burden, hence the implementation. Anything big
missing here that can be made easier?

Greetings,
Jaco