On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. <rvinyard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, it is not right for me. The BuildArch issue depends on the RPM version and not from from distro version. It is simply bad style, IMHO, defining
in the SPEC file something that depends from the "distribution" (in the large sense not only fedora). I never see
this style in RHEL package (appart some little package for the rpm keys ecc). Ok is SUSE yes but, again, i don't like define a dependency based on
a "distro" version, if possible anyway.
regards
Michael Schwendt wrote:Excellent. That's what I was looking for.
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 07:59:43 -0600, Jr. wrote:
>
>> What is the effect on non-Fedora and older distributions (pre F10) if I
>> mark a subpackage (such as documentation) with BuildArch: noarch?
>
> You can evaluate the %fedora variable to use this new feature only
> for Fedora >= 10:
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} > 9
> BuildArch: noarch
> %endif
>
No, it is not right for me. The BuildArch issue depends on the RPM version and not from from distro version. It is simply bad style, IMHO, defining
in the SPEC file something that depends from the "distribution" (in the large sense not only fedora). I never see
this style in RHEL package (appart some little package for the rpm keys ecc). Ok is SUSE yes but, again, i don't like define a dependency based on
a "distro" version, if possible anyway.
regards
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
