=?UTF-8?B?QmFydG9zeiDFmndpxIV0ZWs=?= wrote: > 2010/2/2 Elan Ruusamäe <g...@pld-linux.org>: > > On Tuesday 02 February 2010 16:04:46 shadzik wrote: > >> Author: shadzik [...] > >> +%if "%{pld_release}" != "ti" > >> %attr(755,root,root) %ghost /%{_lib}/libtinfow.so.6 > >> %attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/libncursesw.so.*.* > >> %attr(755,root,root) %ghost %{_libdir}/libncursesw.so.5 > >> %attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/libtinfow.so.*.* > >> %attr(755,root,root) %ghost %{_libdir}/libtinfow.so.5 > >> +%else > >> +%attr(755,root,root) %ghost /%{_lib}/libtinfow.so.5 > >> +%attr(755,root,root) %ghost /%{_lib}/libncursesw.so.5 > >> +%endif > > > > this has exceeded sane amount of the nesting level of ifdefs, please move > > the > > branch specific spec to a dedicated branch, both branches be nicer and more > > easier to update. there isn't so much changes in a spec that such complexity > > of following the conditions (to verify nothing got broken after a change) > > pays off. > > > > same applies to openssl.spec > > This is the way Hawk told me to deal with such problems - exactly not > to have dozens of branches - therefore I'm dealing with them that way. > Two or three more conditions doesn't make it less readable. Request > rejected.
CDG ? -- ======================================================================= Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz an...@mif.pg.gda.pl _______________________________________________ pld-devel-pl mailing list pld-devel-pl@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-pl