On 7/12/06, Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> 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. This avoids
mistakes during mass-updates to your package branches.
Using %{?dist} must not be mandatory. Hardcoding the value %{dist} would
expand to is justified in some cases.
My own private rpms that are only good for a certain release have a
BuildRequires: %{dist} == fc4 # change to appropriate buildsystem name for FC4
This way I know that it will not build on something else, and I don't
have to rely on the intelligence of others to understand my stupidity.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
