noarch subpackages
Rick L Vinyard Jr
rvinyard at cs.nmsu.edu
Fri Jul 10 17:35:28 UTC 2009
yersinia wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
> <rvinyard at cs.nmsu.edu <mailto: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.
I never said it wasn't.
More information about the devel
mailing list