>> I would not be opposed to an official macro name in LSB to >use for that. > >Given that the RPM author doesn't think it's a good solution, I doubt >LSB will adopt it. It's not really what's standardized anyway: that describes the binary rpm format, but not the details of how a specfile is used to drive rpm to construct one (we even pretend that you could use something other than rpm to do so). Anyway, the idea of LSB is to build distro-independent rpms, which means we don't want anything which identifies a target distro - if it needs that, it's by definition not distro-independent. _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
