On Jun 24, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote: > On 2015-06-24 16:07, Tomasz Gajc wrote: > >> Per what are the real benefits of moving back to rpm.org? >> Does this needs some extra work on perl-URPM, urpmi, mock-urpm and various >> ABF subsystems ? > > I think there's both benefits (esp. that it's the same thing opensuse and the > likes use, so zypper will automatically get all needed changes) and > drawbacks... > > We rely on stuff that was added in rpm5 in quite a few spec files -- I > haven't looked at rpm.org in a long time, so maybe they have been added there > by now. (Either way they should be fairly easy to add if we decide to go down > that route). What's the status of: > > Filetype triggers
Do you mean file triggers? There's a set of ~20 tags that have been added @rpm.org, with associated syntax and state machine changes. rpm5.org overloaded existing triggers recognizing file paths > %bcond_with and friends maros are quite portable. > %apply_patches lua does the patching, also quite portable. > Suggests: handling rpm.org has all of recommends/suggest/enhances implemented. rpm5.org adds a MISSINGOK flag to existing PRCO dependencies > %track *shrug* > pkgconfig(*) and cmake(*) dependencies etc. script helpers are portable. > noarch subpackages in arch specific packages Both rpm.org and rpm5.org permit noarch subpackages. 73 de Jeff _______________________________________________ OM-Cooker mailing list [email protected] http://ml.openmandriva.org/listinfo.cgi/om-cooker-openmandriva.org
