Lainaus yersinia <yersinia.spiros@xxxxxxxxx>:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
<rvinyard@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> 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
Yes, it really should. Otherwise, some will look like:
clip
If you need further proof of the confusion simply look to this thread.
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.
That would be up to the distro guys to do, since they can define the
macro how they wish. SuSe might define it to use their corresponding
%{dist} variable. Or, it could be defined to evaluate to empty, if the
rpm version doesn't support it. Or, it could evaluate just the noarch
bit.
The beauty of this is, of course, that you could even skip the
conditionals and just define the macro per distro basis (e.g. in the
redhat-rpm-macros package): the macro in F-10 could be just %{nil} and
in F-11 "BuildArch: noarch".
There has been some discussion about versioning rpm specfiles, but I
don't know whether that discussion lead anywhere.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
