9:47 a.m.
hi,
what's the proper way to distinguish epel from fedora in the spec file?
i'd like to add
ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
on epel but not in case of fedora in a package (since there is no java
on ppc on epel). but what's the current recommended way to do so?
unfortunately %{?rhel} is not defined even in rhel-5 so what else can i
use to distinguish it from fedora?
thanks in advance.
ps. anyway it'd be useful to put into the epel packaging guidelines.
--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"
9:51 a.m.
Farkas Levente wrote:
hi,
what's the proper way to distinguish epel from fedora in the spec file?
i'd like to add
ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
on epel but not in case of fedora in a package (since there is no java
on ppc on epel). but what's the current recommended way to do so?
unfortunately %{?rhel} is not defined even in rhel-5 so what else can i
it is defined. See for instance
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/libprelude/devel/libprelude.spec...
which separates the BRs for RHEL5 from the rest
use to distinguish it from fedora?
thanks in advance.
ps. anyway it'd be useful to put into the epel packaging guidelines.
--
Manuel Wolfshant linux registered user #131416
IT manager NoBug Consulting SRL
A: Yes.
Q: Are you sure?
>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
9:56 a.m.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Manuel Wolfshant
<wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
Farkas Levente wrote:
>
> hi,
> what's the proper way to distinguish epel from fedora in the spec file?
> i'd like to add
> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
> on epel but not in case of fedora in a package (since there is no java
> on ppc on epel). but what's the current recommended way to do so?
> unfortunately %{?rhel} is not defined even in rhel-5 so what else can i
>
it is defined. See for instance
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/libprelude/devel/libprelude.spec...
which separates the BRs for RHEL5 from the rest
You need to install some extra rpm macros with the buildsys-macros pacakage
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/buildgroups/rhel5/
Steve
> use to distinguish it from fedora?
> thanks in advance.
>
> ps. anyway it'd be useful to put into the epel packaging guidelines.
>
>
--
Manuel Wolfshant linux registered user #131416
IT manager NoBug Consulting SRL
A: Yes.
>Q: Are you sure?
>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
--
Steve Traylen
8:15 p.m.
On Nov 10, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Steve Traylen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Manuel Wolfshant
<wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
> Farkas Levente wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>> what's the proper way to distinguish epel from fedora in the spec
>> file?
>> i'd like to add
>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>> on epel but not in case of fedora in a package (since there is no
>> java
>> on ppc on epel). but what's the current recommended way to do so?
>> unfortunately %{?rhel} is not defined even in rhel-5 so what else
>> can i
Is there any problem with:
%if %{el5}
ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
%endif
---
derks
10:13 p.m.
On Tuesday 10 November 2009 08:15:58 pm BJ Dierkes wrote:
On Nov 10, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Steve Traylen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Manuel Wolfshant
>
> <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
>> Farkas Levente wrote:
>>> hi,
>>> what's the proper way to distinguish epel from fedora in the spec
>>> file?
>>> i'd like to add
>>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>>> on epel but not in case of fedora in a package (since there is no
>>> java
>>> on ppc on epel). but what's the current recommended way to do so?
>>> unfortunately %{?rhel} is not defined even in rhel-5 so what else
>>> can i
Is there any problem with:
%if %{el5}
ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
%endif
yes nothing defines %{el5} and you would get a failure on all targets
the correct way to handle it would be
%if 0%{?rhel} > 1
ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
%endif
though we do not build epel ppc64
Dennis
2:49 a.m.
On 11/11/2009 05:13 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday 10 November 2009 08:15:58 pm BJ Dierkes wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Steve Traylen wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Manuel Wolfshant
>>
>> <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
>>> Farkas Levente wrote:
>>>> hi,
>>>> what's the proper way to distinguish epel from fedora in the spec
>>>> file?
>>>> i'd like to add
>>>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>>>> on epel but not in case of fedora in a package (since there is no
>>>> java
>>>> on ppc on epel). but what's the current recommended way to do so?
>>>> unfortunately %{?rhel} is not defined even in rhel-5 so what else
>>>> can i
>
> Is there any problem with:
>
> %if %{el5}
> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
> %endif
yes nothing defines %{el5} and you would get a failure on all targets
the correct way to handle it would be
%if 0%{?rhel} > 1
ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
%endif
which is still not working for those who not install the extra packages
buildsys-macros and of course won't work with rhel 6 where these exclude
shouldn't have to defined.
so until now no one send a general good solution:-(
--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"
3:58 a.m.
Farkas Levente wrote:
On 11/11/2009 05:13 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 November 2009 08:15:58 pm BJ Dierkes wrote:
>
>> On Nov 10, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Steve Traylen wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Manuel Wolfshant
>>>
>>> <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Farkas Levente wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hi,
>>>>> what's the proper way to distinguish epel from fedora in the
spec
>>>>> file?
>>>>> i'd like to add
>>>>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>>>>> on epel but not in case of fedora in a package (since there is no
>>>>> java
>>>>> on ppc on epel). but what's the current recommended way to do
so?
>>>>> unfortunately %{?rhel} is not defined even in rhel-5 so what else
>>>>> can i
>>>>>
>> Is there any problem with:
>>
>> %if %{el5}
>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>> %endif
>>
> yes nothing defines %{el5} and you would get a failure on all targets
> the correct way to handle it would be
>
> %if 0%{?rhel} > 1
> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
> %endif
>
which is still not working for those who not install the extra packages
buildsys-macros and of course won't work with rhel 6 where these exclude
shouldn't have to defined.
so until now no one send a general good solution:-(
The mock rpm distributed in epel contains something similar to
[groups]
name=groups
baseurl=http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/buildgroups/rhel5/x86_64/
I do not want to sound harsh but if you refuse to use the macros which
define the settings of the build infrastructure (either passing the info
to mock or by defining it in .rpmmacros (or any similar way)), how do
you expect to find out what distro you are building for ?
5:45 a.m.
On 11/11/2009 10:58 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
Farkas Levente wrote:
> On 11/11/2009 05:13 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 10 November 2009 08:15:58 pm BJ Dierkes wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 10, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Steve Traylen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Manuel Wolfshant
>>>>
>>>> <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Farkas Levente wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>> what's the proper way to distinguish epel from fedora in the
spec
>>>>>> file?
>>>>>> i'd like to add
>>>>>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>>>>>> on epel but not in case of fedora in a package (since there is
no
>>>>>> java
>>>>>> on ppc on epel). but what's the current recommended way to do
so?
>>>>>> unfortunately %{?rhel} is not defined even in rhel-5 so what
else
>>>>>> can i
>>>>>>
>>> Is there any problem with:
>>>
>>> %if %{el5}
>>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>>> %endif
>>>
>> yes nothing defines %{el5} and you would get a failure on all targets
>> the correct way to handle it would be
>> %if 0%{?rhel} > 1
>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>> %endif
>>
>
> which is still not working for those who not install the extra packages
> buildsys-macros and of course won't work with rhel 6 where these exclude
> shouldn't have to defined.
> so until now no one send a general good solution:-(
>
>
The mock rpm distributed in epel contains something similar to
[groups]
name=groups
baseurl=http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/buildgroups/rhel5/x86_64/
I do not want to sound harsh but if you refuse to use the macros which
define the settings of the build infrastructure (either passing the info
to mock or by defining it in .rpmmacros (or any similar way)), how do
you expect to find out what distro you are building for ?
the difference is that on fedora the distro itself contains these macro
while on rhel it's an external addon package.
--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"
6:27 a.m.
Farkas Levente wrote:
On 11/11/2009 10:58 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> Farkas Levente wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2009 05:13 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Tuesday 10 November 2009 08:15:58 pm BJ Dierkes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 10, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Steve Traylen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Manuel Wolfshant
>>>>>
>>>>> <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Farkas Levente wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>> what's the proper way to distinguish epel from fedora in
the spec
>>>>>>> file?
>>>>>>> i'd like to add
>>>>>>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>>>>>>> on epel but not in case of fedora in a package (since there
is no
>>>>>>> java
>>>>>>> on ppc on epel). but what's the current recommended way
to do so?
>>>>>>> unfortunately %{?rhel} is not defined even in rhel-5 so what
else
>>>>>>> can i
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> Is there any problem with:
>>>>
>>>> %if %{el5}
>>>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>>>> %endif
>>>>
>>>>
>>> yes nothing defines %{el5} and you would get a failure on all targets
>>> the correct way to handle it would be
>>> %if 0%{?rhel} > 1
>>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>>> %endif
>>>
>>>
>> which is still not working for those who not install the extra packages
>> buildsys-macros and of course won't work with rhel 6 where these exclude
>> shouldn't have to defined.
>> so until now no one send a general good solution:-(
>>
>>
>>
> The mock rpm distributed in epel contains something similar to
>
> [groups]
> name=groups
> baseurl=http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/buildgroups/rhel5/x86_64/
>
> I do not want to sound harsh but if you refuse to use the macros which
> define the settings of the build infrastructure (either passing the info
> to mock or by defining it in .rpmmacros (or any similar way)), how do
> you expect to find out what distro you are building for ?
>
the difference is that on fedora the distro itself contains these macro
while on rhel it's an external addon package.
Well, if you are not happy with the solutions that we have given you
and the missing macros from the distro are your show stopper, there is
another easy solution: just ask RH to include and distribute those
macros. I am sure that they will obey at once :)
9:57 a.m.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:45:55PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
On 11/11/2009 10:58 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> Farkas Levente wrote:
>> On 11/11/2009 05:13 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 10 November 2009 08:15:58 pm BJ Dierkes wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 10, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Steve Traylen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Manuel Wolfshant
>>>>>
>>>>> <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Farkas Levente wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>> what's the proper way to distinguish epel from fedora in
the spec
>>>>>>> file?
>>>>>>> i'd like to add
>>>>>>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>>>>>>> on epel but not in case of fedora in a package (since there
is no
>>>>>>> java
>>>>>>> on ppc on epel). but what's the current recommended way
to do so?
>>>>>>> unfortunately %{?rhel} is not defined even in rhel-5 so what
else
>>>>>>> can i
>>>>>>>
>>>> Is there any problem with:
>>>>
>>>> %if %{el5}
>>>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>>>> %endif
>>>>
>>> yes nothing defines %{el5} and you would get a failure on all targets
>>> the correct way to handle it would be
>>> %if 0%{?rhel} > 1
>>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>>> %endif
>>>
>>
>> which is still not working for those who not install the extra packages
>> buildsys-macros and of course won't work with rhel 6 where these exclude
>> shouldn't have to defined.
>> so until now no one send a general good solution:-(
>>
>>
> The mock rpm distributed in epel contains something similar to
>
> [groups]
> name=groups
> baseurl=http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/buildgroups/rhel5/x86_64/
>
> I do not want to sound harsh but if you refuse to use the macros which
> define the settings of the build infrastructure (either passing the info
> to mock or by defining it in .rpmmacros (or any similar way)), how do
> you expect to find out what distro you are building for ?
the difference is that on fedora the distro itself contains these macro
while on rhel it's an external addon package.
Note: You can also check for the absence of %{fedora} macros in cases where
no RHEL release will support the feature.
So:
%if 0%{?fedora} < 1
ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
%endif
When RHEL6 comes out you'll need to update the macro but -- it could be that
there still won't be the needed support on ppc or it could be that RHEL6
defines the %rhel macros so it might not be an issue.
-Toshio
9:27 a.m.
On Wednesday 11 November 2009 02:49:32 am Farkas Levente wrote:
On 11/11/2009 05:13 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 November 2009 08:15:58 pm BJ Dierkes wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Steve Traylen wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Manuel Wolfshant
>>>
>>> <wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
>>>> Farkas Levente wrote:
>>>>> hi,
>>>>> what's the proper way to distinguish epel from fedora in the
spec
>>>>> file?
>>>>> i'd like to add
>>>>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>>>>> on epel but not in case of fedora in a package (since there is no
>>>>> java
>>>>> on ppc on epel). but what's the current recommended way to do
so?
>>>>> unfortunately %{?rhel} is not defined even in rhel-5 so what else
>>>>> can i
>>
>> Is there any problem with:
>>
>> %if %{el5}
>> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
>> %endif
>
> yes nothing defines %{el5} and you would get a failure on all targets
> the correct way to handle it would be
>
> %if 0%{?rhel} > 1
> ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64
> %endif
which is still not working for those who not install the extra packages
buildsys-macros and of course won't work with rhel 6 where these exclude
shouldn't have to defined.
so until now no one send a general good solution:-(
there is no macros available in
a default rhel 5 or earlier sysetm to do what
you want. the buildsystem uses byildsys-macros to define them. it is a safe
assumption that rhel6 will have them already defined. it was Fedora 7 or 8
that introduced them to fedora-release. after RHEL 5 was done. im pretty sure
that the java situation will be the same for EL-6, my understanding is for
rhel they only build/ship/support the native jit arches. which is sparc
sparc64 ix86 and x86_64. rhel doesnt support sparc so it will likely only have
ix86 and x86_64 builds yet again. which is why i did >1 rather than <= 5
Dennis
5273
days inactive
5274
days old
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
11 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
BJ Dierkes -
Dennis Gilmore -
Farkas Levente -
Manuel Wolfshant -
Rex Dieter -
Steve Traylen -
Toshio Kuratomi