Simon J Mudd wrote:
Again I agree. This facility is for third party packagers who want to
build rpms for multiple vendors and/or distributions. The main reason
for adding the %{dist} macro to the end of the Release: tag is to
avoid writing multiple binary rpms into the same location when
building/storing AND to enable us to recognise them after having been
built. As such these rpms are ALWAYS add-on packages and never part
of the distribution itself.
Is that reasonable/sensible?
It's perfectly resonable. Actually, I was surprised that RPM system
doesn't provide this out-of-the-box.
Moreover, I wouldn't mind if distribution RPMs also included some
distribution identifier in the name of RPM package. This is strictly
from end user perspective. Sometimes I need to make small "sets" of
RPMs or copy them around. It is not always trivial to deduce for which
version of Red Hat particular RPM is (or if it is RPM from Red Hat
distribution at all), once you copy it someplace outside of installation
media. Even if you look at official distribution RPMs, some of them
include distribution name inside relase tag. IMO, having this handled
by RPM system itself in generic way would be great.
BTW, me, myself, when building... I'm simply encoding the distribution
name into the RPM filename (but not in version-release). I've something
like this in my dot rpmmacros file (one line, in case it gets wrapped
around):
%_rpmfilename
%%{NAME}-%%{VERSION}-%%{RELEASE}.%($HOME/bin/distro).%%{ARCH}.rpm
The "distro" script detects where it is being run, and simply outputs
short string such as "rhl73" or "el4" or "fc3"... Probably not the best
solution, and I can bet I'm going to be told that "this is not the way
RPM system is designed". However by using this, I don't need to change
spec files in 3rd party SRPMs... This way, by simply looking at the
filename, I know for which distributin the RPM is built.
_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
