https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258182 --- Comment #10 from Jan Chaloupka <jchaloup@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > And why are you creating platform specific subpackages? They are never created > both on single platform if I understand it correctly, so what is the point > then? So I can provide compiler(gcc-go) and compiler(golang) among others. Which could be on the other hand ifarched in one package. Good point. It is more like to have package named gcc-go for gcc-go compiler and golang for golang compiler. To have two semantically distinct packages. Note: ifarch of macros.* files, compiler(gcc-go/golang), Requires and summary will work but it does not look so good as two distinct packages. > I would also suggest to include the "macros.go-compilers" files as a SOURCE > instead creating them on the fly. One could easier compare them with current > state for example and you can save some escaping ... Point taken. Created macros.golang-compiler and macros.gcc-go-compiler. At the same time I have moved some macros from go-srpm-macros to macros.*-compiler and reduced unnecessary lines in macros definition. > The downside is that you have to replace/expand the %{golang_build}, > %{gcc_go_build}, %{golang_test} and %{gcc_go_test} macros in the template, but > that is still probably better Not needed anymore with the change above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review