noarch subpackages

[yersinia]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
<rvinyard at cs.nmsu.edu>wrote:

> Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 18:28 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
> >> > Except it should be:
> >> > %if 0%{?fedora} > 9 || 0%{?rhel} > 5
> >>
> >> it'd be nice if _all_ packages which have noarch subpackage use this
> >> since most fedora packager reply to my such patches that they don't care
> >> about rhel/centos:-(
> >
> > This should really be a macro in rpm, as it has to be duplicated in so
> > many places. Say, %{_noarch_subpackage} which would expand to
> >
> > %if 0%{?fedora} > 9 || 0%{?rhel} > 5
> > BuildArch:    noarch
> > %endif
>
> Yes, it really should. Otherwise, some will look like:
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} > 9
> BuildArch:      noarch
> %endif
>
> and others like:
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} > 9 || 0%{?rhel} > 5
> BuildArch:      noarch
> %endif
>
> If you need further proof of the confusion simply look to this thread.
>
> Plus it is more expressive as to what the intent of the check is for,
> allowing a smoother migration process if, in the future, a check is put in
> for the rpm version.


So you agreed that the check is on the rpm version, not "distro" version.

>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090709/d95f8ea1/attachment.htm>