https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957693 Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxx | |m Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Adrien Devresse from comment #3) > I prefer keep one spec file and one SRPM for all plateform when possible, it > simplify a lot the version management and the updates. Keep in mind, different branches need different spec files in certain cases. Have a look at the guidelines where are some special parts for EPEL 5 which are not intended to be entrained through all newer branches. Times have changed ;) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging "As a reminder, these guidelines only apply to EPEL packages, not to Fedora packages." (In reply to Adrien Devresse from comment #5) > > Maybe, but by adding the appropriate tag you could solve this: > > Adding this tag, at least when targeting EL5, leads to a simple package > compilation failure. > The BuildArch tag affect the full package and not only the doc subpackage. This is vaild for EPEL 5, and *only* for that branch. Of course, you can leave it as is for el5. But for all newer releases, a doc package which contains no binaries should be noarch. Fix the other issues, and I will do the final review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SeWW4afVHd&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review