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

Re: multi-distro specs (was noarch subpackages)



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

Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote:

> Ben Boeckel wrote:
>> -----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.
>>
> 
> Doesn't %{_datadir} and %{_libdir} take care of that?

Probably, which answers the concern there, but you still have 
package splits differing. Fedora has tarball-level splits. Other 
distros do app-level splits (Debian(-based) at least, though not 
RPM could still happen with an RPM distro). Still a filelists 
issue. You also have package naming to deal with.

Though I suppose is a moot point as well if it's a side-effect 
of sharing spec files.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkpV/t8ACgkQiPi+MRHG3qQ8MgCeMnLynOUE0HrSYKW9qdRxRXHQ
diUAn2M5yKt/X7MiNWIEJrvVPuqTbxQq
=e6kq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



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