[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: noarch subpackages



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

yersinia wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
> <rvinyard cs nmsu edu>wrote:
> 
>> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> > On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 07:59:43 -0600, Jr. wrote:
>> >
>> >> What is the effect on non-Fedora and older distributions 
(pre F10) if I
>> >> mark a subpackage (such as documentation) with BuildArch: 
noarch?
>> >
>> > You can evaluate the %fedora variable to use this new 
feature only
>> > for Fedora >= 10:
>> >
>> > %if 0%{?fedora} > 9
>> > BuildArch: noarch
>> > %endif
>> >
>>
>> Excellent. That's what I was looking for.
>>
> 
> No, it is not right for me. The BuildArch issue depends on the 
RPM version
> and not from from distro version. It is simply bad style, 
IMHO, defining
> in the SPEC file something that depends from the 
"distribution" (in the
> large sense not only fedora). I never see
> this style in RHEL package (appart some little package for the 
rpm keys
> ecc). Ok is SUSE yes but, again, i don't like define a 
dependency based on
> a "distro" version, if possible anyway.
> 
> regards

I don't think you should use a spec file for two distros. AFAIK, 
SuSE uses /opt for stuff. Fedora uses /usr. The file listings 
would be different for each. I don't think you can have an 
every-rpm-distro-under-the-sun specfile and not have it either 
messy or wrong.

- --Ben
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkpV5zgACgkQiPi+MRHG3qTg4wCbBmmc7nSkN9NNF0xK94Evs11f
4xEAoLtciGgwjRkCl6wiGYt1v3pazh6l
=L40w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]