On Tuesday 01 August 2006 13:29, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 01/08/06, Axel Liljencrantz <liljencrantz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Thanks for the tip, that makes a lot of sense. I provide you with a
> > revised, unified monster. It is hardcoded to handle all known fedora
> > versions correctly, and in case of a non-fedora system, it falls back
> > to checking the layout of the filesystem and performing an educated
> > guess as to the correct dependencies.
>
> It is my understanding that including cruft in the spec file to allow
> it to build on non fedora distributions is strongly discouraged in
> extras - the spec files in fedora extras are for fedora. So I would
> suggest removing the %if 0%{?fedora} parts.
I don't understand the point. As an upstream developper of CGAL¹, for example,
I would prefere that the spec file for Fedora is the same as the one we use
internally to generate development snapshots. Yes the resulting spec file is
quite an advanced one, because of that. But if I can prove that I have
written it, and can maintain it, what is the problem, from the FE point of
view? The resulting RPMs are not bloated because of the complexity of the
src.rpm file.
¹) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/199168
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
