noarch subpackages

[yersinia]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Ben Boeckel <MathStuf at gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> yersinia wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
> > <rvinyard at cs.nmsu.edu>wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 07:59:43 -0600, Jr. wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What is the effect on non-Fedora and older distributions
> (pre F10) if I
> >> >> mark a subpackage (such as documentation) with BuildArch:
> noarch?
> >> >
> >> > You can evaluate the %fedora variable to use this new
> feature only
> >> > for Fedora >= 10:
> >> >
> >> > %if 0%{?fedora} > 9
> >> > BuildArch: noarch
> >> > %endif
> >> >
> >>
> >> Excellent. That's what I was looking for.
> >>
> >
> > No, it is not right for me. The BuildArch issue depends on the
> RPM version
> > and not from from distro version. It is simply bad style,
> IMHO, defining
> > in the SPEC file something that depends from the
> "distribution" (in the
> > large sense not only fedora). I never see
> > this style in RHEL package (appart some little package for the
> rpm keys
> > ecc). Ok is SUSE yes but, again, i don't like define a
> dependency based on
> > a "distro" version, if possible anyway.
> >
> > regards
>
> I don't think you should use a spec file for two distros. AFAIK,
> SuSE uses /opt for stuff. Fedora uses /usr. The file listings
> would be different for each. I don't think you can have an
> every-rpm-distro-under-the-sun specfile and not have it either
> messy or wrong.
>

No everyone agreed with this or would the spec/rpm version frammentation go
forever.

http://www.mail-archive.com/rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org/msg00885.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org/msg00939.html

Regards






>
> - --Ben
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkpV5zgACgkQiPi+MRHG3qTg4wCbBmmc7nSkN9NNF0xK94Evs11f
> 4xEAoLtciGgwjRkCl6wiGYt1v3pazh6l
> =L40w
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090709/27c5c674/attachment.htm>