proper way to distinguish epel from fedora

[Dennis Gilmore]

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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/attachments/20091110/c63a5c2e/attachment.sig>