noarch subpackages

[Rick L Vinyard Jr]

yersinia wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. 
> <rvinyard at cs.nmsu.edu <mailto:rvinyard at cs.nmsu.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Jussi Lehtola wrote:
>     > On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 18:28 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
>     >> > Except it should be:
>     >> > %if 0%{?fedora} > 9 || 0%{?rhel} > 5
>     >>
>     >> it'd be nice if _all_ packages which have noarch subpackage use
>     this
>     >> since most fedora packager reply to my such patches that they
>     don't care
>     >> about rhel/centos:-(
>     >
>     > 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
>     >
>     > %if 0%{?fedora} > 9 || 0%{?rhel} > 5
>     > BuildArch:    noarch
>     > %endif
>
>     Yes, it really should. Otherwise, some will look like:
>
>     %if 0%{?fedora} > 9
>     BuildArch:      noarch
>     %endif
>
>     and others like:
>
>     %if 0%{?fedora} > 9 || 0%{?rhel} > 5
>     BuildArch:      noarch
>     %endif
>
>     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.

I never said it wasn't.