yersinia wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. <rvinyard@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rvinyard@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:Jussi Lehtola wrote: > 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 Yes, it really should. Otherwise, some will look like: %if 0%{?fedora} > 9 BuildArch: noarch %endif and others like: %if 0%{?fedora} > 9 || 0%{?rhel} > 5 BuildArch: noarch %endif 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.
I never said it wasn't. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
