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

Re: noarch subpackages

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Ben Boeckel <MathStuf gmail com> wrote:
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:
>> >
>> > 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.

No everyone agreed with this or would the spec/rpm version frammentation go forever.

http://www.mail-archive.com/rpm-maint lists rpm org/msg00885.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/rpm-maint lists rpm org/msg00939.html



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


fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list redhat com

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