noarch subpackages

[yersinia]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Jussi Lehtola <
jussilehtola at fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> Lainaus yersinia <yersinia.spiros at gmail.com>:
>
>  On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
>> <rvinyard at cs.nmsu.edu>wrote:
>>
>>  Jussi Lehtola wrote:
>>>
>>> > This should really be a macro in rpm, as it has to be duplicated in so
>>> > many places. Say, %{_noarch_subpackage} which would expand to
>>>
>>> Yes, it really should. Otherwise, some will look like:
>>>
>>
> clip
>
>  If you need further proof of the confusion simply look to this thread.
>>>
>>> Plus it is more expressive as to what the intent of the check is for,
>>> allowing a smoother migration process if, in the future, a check is put
>>> in
>>> for the rpm version.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So you agreed that the check is on the rpm version, not "distro" version.
>>
>
> That would be up to the distro guys to do, since they can define the macro
> how they wish.


He, macro %configure exist everywhere. Not bad at all to have everywhere a
rpm_version macro upstream. Also in the past this could be useful (think to
the %check stanza)


> SuSe might define it to use their corresponding %{dist} variable. Or, it
> could be defined to evaluate to empty, if the rpm version doesn't support
> it. Or, it could evaluate just the noarch bit.
>
> The beauty of this is, of course, that you could even skip the conditionals
> and just define the macro per distro basis (e.g. in the redhat-rpm-macros
> package): the macro in F-10 could be just %{nil} and in F-11 "BuildArch:
> noarch".
>
> There has been some discussion about versioning rpm specfiles, but I don't
> know whether that discussion lead anywhere.
>

Noone care of this. the rpm world is different from the deb world : it is
just a matter of fact, not sharp criticism at all.

>
> --
> Jussi Lehtola
> Fedora Project Contributor
> jussilehtola at fedoraproject.org
>
>
> --
>  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/20090709/5c7bef04/attachment.htm>