On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 19:50 +0100, Simon J Mudd wrote:
>
> Please note that most people make the release of the form
>
> Release: 1.%{distro}
>
> not as described above.
It's better to do 1%{?dist} imho
with the . as part of the %{dist} macro (if defined)
That way if the dist isn't specified, it just becomes 1 - not 1.
I don't know how other distributions do things, but the mock (and
previously mach) build environments for Fedora Extras define the dist
macro. It's not defined in the standard rpm macros, but it is in the
chroot build environments.
I would not be opposed to an official macro name in LSB to use for that.
I would be opposed to LSB stating that packages need a %{?dist} - I
don't think that is always necessary.
As far as distributions setting the macro, that really only needs to be
done in the build environment (which should be used for packages meant
for distribution to avoid accidental linkage against unintended
libraries/versions of libraries)
_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
