On 5/9/2019 4:14 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:40 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Also, if for some reason I don't grok one absolutely needs to use the
exact same spec file for Fedora 31+ and EPEL7 (which is based on F19),
than keeping the dependency as it is now is also an option. One extra
unneeded dependency is not the end of the world.
Zbyszek
It's useful to have one spec file. Maintaining 2 or 3 spec files means
maintaining and keeping synchronized 2, or 3, synchronized git
branches or shoving in logic to detect different build configurations.
This kind of logic is already in practice for RHEL, EPEL, and Fedora
for many packages, even though it is often applied inconsistently.
Not to mention that this is more or less the entire point of having an
SRPM available. Packaging means that if I need a differing version of
something on my system, I can often grab the latest .src.rpm and
recompile locally, and -- subject to ABI compatibility restrictions
(which will be being taken into account anyway) -- this often Just Works.
No RH SysEng or systems administrator is going to head to a Fedora git
branch and check out individual components as a starting point. Thus,
every tiny structural change like this made without regard to backwards
compatibility (by, say, making a macro a no-op at the distro level
instead) makes it harder and harder to actually leverage what's in the
RPM ecosystem.
-jc
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
