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

Re: noarch subpackages

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Jussi Lehtola <jussilehtola fedoraproject org> wrote:
Lainaus yersinia <yersinia spiros gmail com>:

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

Jussi Lehtola wrote:

> 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

Yes, it really should. Otherwise, some will look like:


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.

That would be up to the distro guys to do, since they can define the macro how they wish.
He, macro %configure exist everywhere. Not bad at all to have everywhere a rpm_version macro upstream. Also in the past this could be useful (think to the %check stanza)
SuSe might define it to use their corresponding %{dist} variable. Or, it could be defined to evaluate to empty, if the rpm version doesn't support it. Or, it could evaluate just the noarch bit.

The beauty of this is, of course, that you could even skip the conditionals and just define the macro per distro basis (e.g. in the redhat-rpm-macros package): the macro in F-10 could be just %{nil} and in F-11 "BuildArch: noarch".

There has been some discussion about versioning rpm specfiles, but I don't know whether that discussion lead anywhere.
Noone care of this. the rpm world is different from the deb world : it is just a matter of fact, not sharp criticism at all.

Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola fedoraproject org


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