2010/2/2 Elan Ruusamäe <[email protected]>: > On Tuesday 02 February 2010 16:04:46 shadzik wrote: >> Author: shadzik Date: Tue Feb 2 14:04:46 2010 GMT >> Module: packages Tag: HEAD >> ---- Log message: >> - make it build on Titanium, try not to break build on Th - let's see if >> that succeeded > > ... > >> +%if "%{pld_release}" != "ti" >> %attr(755,root,root) %ghost /%{_lib}/libtinfow.so.6 >> %attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/libncursesw.so.*.* >> %attr(755,root,root) %ghost %{_libdir}/libncursesw.so.5 >> %attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/libtinfow.so.*.* >> %attr(755,root,root) %ghost %{_libdir}/libtinfow.so.5 >> +%else >> +%attr(755,root,root) %ghost /%{_lib}/libtinfow.so.5 >> +%attr(755,root,root) %ghost /%{_lib}/libncursesw.so.5 >> +%endif > > this has exceeded sane amount of the nesting level of ifdefs, please move the > branch specific spec to a dedicated branch, both branches be nicer and more > easier to update. there isn't so much changes in a spec that such complexity > of following the conditions (to verify nothing got broken after a change) > pays off. > > same applies to openssl.spec
This is the way Hawk told me to deal with such problems - exactly not to have dozens of branches - therefore I'm dealing with them that way. Two or three more conditions doesn't make it less readable. Request rejected. -- "I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LOOOOONG time." -Guy Kawasaki _______________________________________________ pld-devel-pl mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-pl
