[Bug 524119] Review Request: nmon - Nigel's performance MONitor for Linux

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524119





--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-09-19 16:53:20 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > Yes, it is. The spec file is completely general, and if you build e.g. a .f11
> > srpm on Fedora 10 you'll get out a .f10 RPM.
> 
> Aha! Of Course! (somewhere, a light comes on)
> 
> So just to clarify, what you're saying is that even if the f10 & f11 SRPMS are
> identical, there still needs to be two seperate SRPMS, rather than one without
> the %{?dist} tag?

Not exactly. The RPMs built on different distributions from the same SRPM will
be different. But in the review it is generally enough that the package builds
in the development tree (rawhide).

> That now begs another question - do I need to change this 'review request'
> submission from rawhide to Fedora 10, and then submit another for Fedora 11?

No. The %{?dist} tag is a SHOULD item, and comes from the fact that once the
package has been approved and imported in Fedora CVS, you won't be able to
build the package for e.g. Fedora 10 and Fedora 11, since the build system
won't allow you to tag multiple spec files with the same version and release.

> > Do you have redhat-rpm-config installed?  
> 
> I do now, thanks. That has sorted it out.  

Funny, it should have been part of the standard package set for some time now..

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.