On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Dag Wieers wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > > > > I also would like to hear what you think the drawbacks are to allowing > > > the extra macros to constrast with the list advantages you see. > > > > BTW Matthias sneaked in some macros from RPMforge exactly the way I would > > like to too ! :) I thought I should mention it. > > > > Maybe I shouldn't talk about it, but just do it and see what people think. > > Afterall it's not rocket science, it doesn't add complexity and it makes > > a lot of sense to do. But I have the clear feeling that talking about it > > abstractly does not get the right message through as people expect the > > worse to come out of it. > > Shock horror, many many RH's own packages have various switches, toggles and > macros to deal with building on several distro versions. I don't think anybody > is talking about *banning* using macros for that when it doesn't unnecessarily > complicate the spec. Perfect. > The way I see it building for several distributions is > simply not a *priority* because of the shortish lifespan, I never asked for Fedora Extras to build for several distributions, only to keep macros in that can allow others to do that. And this is not about distribution specific macros, but feature-specific macros (that are provided per distribution). Much like Matthias his proftpd package and the rpmforge xine-lib package. > and also it remains to be seen whether extras is going to be a "rolling > release" or more like Core where not each and every package is updated once a > new version comes out. That's indeed the most important factor in the whole equation. -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
