Ben Boeckel wrote:
> -----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.
>
Doesn't %{_datadir} and %{_libdir} take care of that?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
