Here is the answer from the team: "The fedora build setup has git branches for each release EL-5, EL-6, F17, F19, Master, so there is no problem to have different .SPEC files for each branch" and "And is perfectly fine to have conditionals as well:"
From now I'll team up with Rakesh to get ntop in EPEL6 -- Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior http://about.me/henriquejunior >________________________________ > From: Tom H <[email protected]> >To: SL Users <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 10:28 AM >Subject: Re: ntop for EL6 > >On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Henrique Junior <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm already a Fedora packager (not an experient one) and I'd love to put >>> ntop in EPEL (it is in EPEL for EL5). The problem in maintain ntop in EPEL6 >>> is that Fedora now uses systemd to manage our services instead of sysv. It >>> is a Fedora policy to keep only one spec file and that spec is not >>> compatible with EL6 anymore. That is why I believe that RPMForge is the >>> better option. >>> I'm open to ideas to make this package as useful as possible. >> >> RHEL 6 still uses primarily init scripts. Fedora 17 or later, however, >> uses systemd, and the disparity is going to become more of a problem >> for EPEL and Repoforge package maintainers. We're going to have to >> publish two startup files, and install based on which OS is selected. >> >> I'm facing similar work with Subversion and the svnserve init script. > >1) F16 not F17. > >2) See my previous reply about shipping both startup files on a sysvinit >system. > >3) For a systemd box, if both startup files are present, AFAIK, it'll >favor the systemd service file. But you can just ship a sysvinit rc >file and systemd'll start the daemon using it. (I don't know what >EPEL's policies are, but in Fedora you can't switch from sysvinit to >systemd once a version's released; you have to do so during >pre-release.) > > >
