On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 08:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:27:39 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 22:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:24:57PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > > > > The "all caps" hardcoded dist tag is wrong. Instead, you should use
> > > > > %{?dist} to let the buildsystem (both plague and brew support this)
> > > > > determine what the distribution tag is. It will fill in %{dist}
> > > > > with .fc6, for example. The dist tag bits are documented here:
> > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag
> > > > > Hardcoding the value for the dist tag is no longer allowed, since the
> > > > > buildsystem can do it for you.
> > > > I thought that things allowed hardcoding as long as you used the "right"
> > > > value. Granted, doing so is probably kind of silly, but forcing
> > > > syntactic sugar is also overkill
> > >
> > > Also, 'cause sometimes maybe your spec file _is_ specifically for that
> > > release for some reason, and it's too different for a bunch of %ifs to make
> > > sense?
> >
> > Even in those cases, %{dist} will always be correct.
>
> In the resulting binaries, yes, but not in the .spec file. As the package
> maintainer, you don't want to be confused by seeing %{?dist} and assuming
> it is a valid spec for multiple dists when in fact it is not.
As a maintainer you see one spec-file per-distro in CVS.
> This avoids
> mistakes during mass-updates to your package branches.
How that? As a maintainer you have one spec-file per-distro, whether
%{?dist} is present or not doesn't imply anything on whether a spec is
buildable for a different distro.
Using it, however has advantages for specs, which are designed to be
shared across different distros.
> Using %{?dist} must not be mandatory. Hardcoding the value %{dist} would
> expand to is justified in some cases.
IMO, you are drawing invalid conclusions.
Ralf
