Re: [CentOS] Would this be considered a packaging bug?

On 02/25/2017 07:27 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: On 02/25/2017 06:33 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: On 02/25/2017 06:12 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 02/25/2017 06:52 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=861692 The source RPM there uses %if 0%{?rhel} # not

Re: [CentOS] Would this be considered a packaging bug?

On 02/25/2017 06:33 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: On 02/25/2017 06:12 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 02/25/2017 06:52 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=861692 The source RPM there uses %if 0%{?rhel} # not upstreamed Patch500:

Re: [CentOS] Would this be considered a packaging bug?

On 02/25/2017 06:12 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 02/25/2017 06:52 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=861692 The source RPM there uses %if 0%{?rhel} # not upstreamed Patch500: 0001-disable-libe-book-support.patch Patch501:

Re: [CentOS] Would this be considered a packaging bug?

> On Feb 25, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: > My understanding was that platform specific patches were suppose to have the > %if macro where the patch is applied, but should not be where the source for > the patch is defined. It could be that the packagers did

Re: [CentOS] Would this be considered a packaging bug?

On 02/25/2017 06:52 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=861692 > > The source RPM there uses > > %if 0%{?rhel} > # not upstreamed > Patch500: 0001-disable-libe-book-support.patch > Patch501: 0001-fix-build-of-bundled-libzmf-with-boost-1.56.patch >

[CentOS] Would this be considered a packaging bug?

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=861692 The source RPM there uses %if 0%{?rhel} # not upstreamed Patch500: 0001-disable-libe-book-support.patch Patch501: 0001-fix-build-of-bundled-libzmf-with-boost-1.56.patch Patch502: 0001-allow-to-build-bundled-libzmf-on-aarch64.patch