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

Re: noarch subpackages



yersinia wrote:


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

I never said it wasn't.


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