On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. <rvinyard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jussi Lehtola wrote:Yes, it really should. Otherwise, some will look like:
> On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 18:28 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
>> > Except it should be:
>> > %if 0%{?fedora} > 9 || 0%{?rhel} > 5
>>
>> it'd be nice if _all_ packages which have noarch subpackage use this
>> since most fedora packager reply to my such patches that they don't care
>> about rhel/centos:-(
>
> This should really be a macro in rpm, as it has to be duplicated in so
> many places. Say, %{_noarch_subpackage} which would expand to
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} > 9 || 0%{?rhel} > 5
> BuildArch: noarch
> %endif
and others like:
%if 0%{?fedora} > 9
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
If you need further proof of the confusion simply look to this thread.
%if 0%{?fedora} > 9 || 0%{?rhel} > 5
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
Plus it is more expressive as to what the intent of the check is for,
allowing a smoother migration process if, in the future, a check is put in
for the rpm version.
So you agreed that the check is on the rpm version, not "distro" version.
--
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
