On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Matthew Pounsett <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
IMHO, there are so much packaging rpm incompatibility between the rpm distro, other in the rpm per se (
think at "patch rpm" feature , the "obsolete only real package name" and not "virtual package", disabling "internal dependency generator" ecc) that it is very difficult to have some portability anyway.
Regards
Yep, that's fine for my stuff, but requires that we also maintain that definition on our build servers. I was hoping to find something more portable though.
On 03-Mar-2009, at 12:05, devzero2000 wrote:
There are macros defined by the "Build Service": CentoOS or Fedora (or Debian) don't know it. But i think it is not a problem to put an
%centos_version 501
in your preferite rpm macros file (for example ~/.rpmmacros) .
IMHO, there are so much packaging rpm incompatibility between the rpm distro, other in the rpm per se (
think at "patch rpm" feature , the "obsolete only real package name" and not "virtual package", disabling "internal dependency generator" ecc) that it is very difficult to have some portability anyway.
Regards
_______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
