-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
yersinia wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
> <rvinyard@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>> Excellent. That's what I was looking for.
>>
>
> 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
I don't think you should use a spec file for two distros. AFAIK,
SuSE uses /opt for stuff. Fedora uses /usr. The file listings
would be different for each. I don't think you can have an
every-rpm-distro-under-the-sun specfile and not have it either
messy or wrong.
- --Ben
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkpV5zgACgkQiPi+MRHG3qTg4wCbBmmc7nSkN9NNF0xK94Evs11f
4xEAoLtciGgwjRkCl6wiGYt1v3pazh6l
=L40w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
