On Jan 4, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Tim Mooney wrote:
In regard to: Re: Comments on 5.0b4, Ralf S. Engelschall said (at
11:23pm...:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008, Michael Jennings wrote:
%_lib is incorrectly being set to "/lib" instead of "/lib64". This
used to be automatically handled by RPM until someone "fixed"
it. So
what is the "new and improved" way of doing this? :)
There was consensus here that the whole /lib vs. /lib64
fiddling is totally platform-specific and too intrusive in a
cross-platform/cross-vendor world and hence has to be decided and
implemented outside of the stock RPM 5 code base. Usually, the
"right"
way IMHO is to handle this in a rpm.spec of the particular Linux
vendor...
I clearly wasn't paying attention at the right time.
Can you give a more specific example of what you believe the
"right" way
of handling this is? I'm picturing a lot of boilerplate goop
propagated
into hundreds of spec files, and that can't imagine how that's the
right
way to accomplish anything.
The right way (imho) is still with per-platform macro configuration.
The script that used to generate /usr/lib/rpm/CPU-OS/macros used
rpmrc arch/os compatibility to generate.
All that is needed is some other means to generate the per-platform
macros.
FWIW, none of those values have changed for years and years, so
the tarball with all the per-platform macros should be gud enuf as a
distribution mechanism.
73 de Jeff
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
