On 7/9/06, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 12:07 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 7/8/06, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > %perl_sitearch %(eval "`%{__perl} -V:installsitearch`"; echo $installsitearch) > > %perl_sitelib %(eval "`%{__perl} -V:installsitelib`"; echo $installsitelib) > > %perl_vendorarch %(eval "`%{__perl} -V:installvendorarch`"; echo $installvendorarch) > > %perl_vendorlib %(eval "`%{__perl} -V:installvendorlib`"; echo $installvendorlib) > > %perl_archlib %(eval "`%{__perl} -V:installarchlib`"; echo $installarchlib) > > %perl_privlib %(eval "`%{__perl} -V:installprivlib`"; echo $installprivlib) > > Okay, I have updated the macros file here: > > http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/macros.pear > > Let me know if this looks okay. We have leading-underscoreless %perl_* in rpm, %python_* in spec templates and upstream rpm, and %ruby_* in the forthcoming ruby spec template and ruby packaging guidelines; any reason for pear/pecl to be different?
I put the underscores in because Enrico said the opposite: ES> Then, current practice seems to be, to use a leading underscore for ES> directory names (e.g. '%_libdir', '%_bindir'). Hence I would prefer ES> ES> | %_pecl_phpdir ES> ES> instead of ES> ES> | %pecl_phpdir So I guess I will remove the underscores to be in line with the other language directory definitions. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging