On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
<[email protected]>wrote:
> Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 18:28 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
> >> > Except it should be:
> >> > %if 0%{?fedora} > 9 || 0%{?rhel} > 5
> >>
> >> it'd be nice if _all_ packages which have noarch subpackage use this
> >> since most fedora packager reply to my such patches that they don't care
> >> about rhel/centos:-(
> >
> > This should really be a macro in rpm, as it has to be duplicated in so
> > many places. Say, %{_noarch_subpackage} which would expand to
> >
> > %if 0%{?fedora} > 9 || 0%{?rhel} > 5
> > BuildArch: noarch
> > %endif
>
> Yes, it really should. Otherwise, some will look like:
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} > 9
> BuildArch: noarch
> %endif
>
> and others like:
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} > 9 || 0%{?rhel} > 5
> BuildArch: noarch
> %endif
>
> If you need further proof of the confusion simply look to this thread.
>
> Plus it is more expressive as to what the intent of the check is for,
> allowing a smoother migration process if, in the future, a check is put in
> for the rpm version.
So you agreed that the check is on the rpm version, not "distro" version.
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
