On Tue, 02 Feb 2010, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: > On Tuesday 02 of February 2010, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote: > > =?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 ? > > CDG to deal with private pld branches? Is this a joke?
HEAD is not a private pld branch. -- Paweł _______________________________________________ pld-devel-pl mailing list pld-devel-pl@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-pl