Re: noarch subpackages
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:10:09 +0200, yersinia wrote:
%if 0%{?fedora} 9
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
Excellent. That's what I was looking for.
No, it is not right for me. The BuildArch issue depends on the RPM version
and not from from distro version. It is simply bad style, IMHO, defining
in the SPEC file something that depends from the distribution (in the
large sense not only fedora). I never see
this style in RHEL package (appart some little package for the rpm keys
ecc). Ok is SUSE yes but, again, i don't like define a dependency based on
a distro version, if possible anyway.
First of all, the original question was about non-Fedora and older
distributions (pre F10). Above conditional does its job and enables a
noarch sub-pkg only for Fedora 9.
0%{?rhel} 5 may be more future-proof, okay, but isn't true yet for any
existing build-target.
Also, as far as I know, %rhel and %dist are specific to koji/Plague EPEL
builds, as stock RHEL and CentOS don't ship those macros. One needs the
buildsys-macros package. In case I'm mistaken, and I don't have the time
to verify that, what package defines those macros for RHEL?
Finally, I don't agree with parts of the complaints. Either rpmbuild
predefines a variables one can evaluate to check for a certain feature, or
it doesn't. If it doesn't, I don't consider it bad style to eval
%fedora/%rhel and make explicit what a conditional is trying to
achieve. Even for a feature like this, that's better than hiding the
details in a macro. Btw, we're miles away from clean multi-dist spec
files, not only due to different package names. My experience with
multi-dist spec files is that very often the packager loses overview due
to overuse of conditionals and the added difficult of keeping changes in
all conditional spec sections in sync with eachother.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
yersinia wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
rviny...@cs.nmsu.edu mailto:rviny...@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.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
rviny...@cs.nmsu.eduwrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 07:59:43 -0600, Jr. wrote:
What is the effect on non-Fedora and older distributions (pre F10) if I
mark a subpackage (such as documentation) with BuildArch: noarch?
You can evaluate the %fedora variable to use this new feature only
for Fedora = 10:
%if 0%{?fedora} 9
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
Excellent. That's what I was looking for.
No, it is not right for me. The BuildArch issue depends on the RPM version
and not from from distro version. It is simply bad style, IMHO, defining
in the SPEC file something that depends from the distribution (in the
large sense not only fedora). I never see
this style in RHEL package (appart some little package for the rpm keys
ecc). Ok is SUSE yes but, again, i don't like define a dependency based on
a distro version, if possible anyway.
regards
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
yersinia wrote: No, it is not right for me. But it's just how things work. We conditionalize such things based on the Fedora (and possibly RHEL if the specfile supports RHEL or EPEL too) version. Our specfiles do not support any other distribution (by design). Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yersinia wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
rviny...@cs.nmsu.eduwrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 07:59:43 -0600, Jr. wrote:
What is the effect on non-Fedora and older distributions
(pre F10) if I
mark a subpackage (such as documentation) with BuildArch:
noarch?
You can evaluate the %fedora variable to use this new
feature only
for Fedora = 10:
%if 0%{?fedora} 9
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
Excellent. That's what I was looking for.
No, it is not right for me. The BuildArch issue depends on the
RPM version
and not from from distro version. It is simply bad style,
IMHO, defining
in the SPEC file something that depends from the
distribution (in the
large sense not only fedora). I never see
this style in RHEL package (appart some little package for the
rpm keys
ecc). Ok is SUSE yes but, again, i don't like define a
dependency based on
a distro version, if possible anyway.
regards
I don't think you should use a spec file for two distros. AFAIK,
SuSE uses /opt for stuff. Fedora uses /usr. The file listings
would be different for each. I don't think you can have an
every-rpm-distro-under-the-sun specfile and not have it either
messy or wrong.
- --Ben
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkpV5zgACgkQiPi+MRHG3qTg4wCbBmmc7nSkN9NNF0xK94Evs11f
4xEAoLtciGgwjRkCl6wiGYt1v3pazh6l
=L40w
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: multi-distro specs (was noarch subpackages)
Ben Boeckel wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yersinia wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
rviny...@cs.nmsu.eduwrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 07:59:43 -0600, Jr. wrote:
What is the effect on non-Fedora and older distributions
(pre F10) if I
mark a subpackage (such as documentation) with BuildArch:
noarch?
You can evaluate the %fedora variable to use this new
feature only
for Fedora = 10:
%if 0%{?fedora} 9
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
Excellent. That's what I was looking for.
No, it is not right for me. The BuildArch issue depends on the
RPM version
and not from from distro version. It is simply bad style,
IMHO, defining
in the SPEC file something that depends from the
distribution (in the
large sense not only fedora). I never see
this style in RHEL package (appart some little package for the
rpm keys
ecc). Ok is SUSE yes but, again, i don't like define a
dependency based on
a distro version, if possible anyway.
regards
I don't think you should use a spec file for two distros. AFAIK,
SuSE uses /opt for stuff. Fedora uses /usr. The file listings
would be different for each. I don't think you can have an
every-rpm-distro-under-the-sun specfile and not have it either
messy or wrong.
Doesn't %{_datadir} and %{_libdir} take care of that?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
yersinia wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
rviny...@cs.nmsu.eduwrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 07:59:43 -0600, Jr. wrote:
What is the effect on non-Fedora and older distributions
(pre F10) if I
mark a subpackage (such as documentation) with BuildArch:
noarch?
You can evaluate the %fedora variable to use this new
feature only
for Fedora = 10:
%if 0%{?fedora} 9
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
Excellent. That's what I was looking for.
No, it is not right for me. The BuildArch issue depends on the
RPM version
and not from from distro version. It is simply bad style,
IMHO, defining
in the SPEC file something that depends from the
distribution (in the
large sense not only fedora). I never see
this style in RHEL package (appart some little package for the
rpm keys
ecc). Ok is SUSE yes but, again, i don't like define a
dependency based on
a distro version, if possible anyway.
regards
I don't think you should use a spec file for two distros. AFAIK,
SuSE uses /opt for stuff. Fedora uses /usr. The file listings
would be different for each. I don't think you can have an
every-rpm-distro-under-the-sun specfile and not have it either
messy or wrong.
No everyone agreed with this or would the spec/rpm version frammentation go
forever.
http://www.mail-archive.com/rpm-ma...@lists.rpm.org/msg00885.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/rpm-ma...@lists.rpm.org/msg00939.html
Regards
- --Ben
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkpV5zgACgkQiPi+MRHG3qTg4wCbBmmc7nSkN9NNF0xK94Evs11f
4xEAoLtciGgwjRkCl6wiGYt1v3pazh6l
=L40w
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote: Does this cover CentOS as well? Yes. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
yersinia wrote: No everyone agreed with this or would the spec/rpm version frammentation go forever. http://www.mail-archive.com/rpm-ma...@lists.rpm.org/msg00885.html http://www.mail-archive.com/rpm-ma...@lists.rpm.org/msg00939.html People are suggesting unified macros and guidelines, but the reality is that they aren't, so high-quality, guideline-compliant cross-distribution specfiles are not possible at this time. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 07:59:43 -0600, Jr. wrote:
What is the effect on non-Fedora and older distributions (pre F10) if I
mark a subpackage (such as documentation) with BuildArch: noarch?
You can evaluate the %fedora variable to use this new feature only
for Fedora = 10:
%if 0%{?fedora} 9
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
Excellent. That's what I was looking for.
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:-(
--
Levente Si vis pacem para bellum!
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
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
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
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.
It would also allow a non-Fedora/RHEL/CentOS distro (SuSE???) to implement
their own macro.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
rviny...@cs.nmsu.eduwrote:
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.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
Lainaus yersinia yersinia.spi...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
rviny...@cs.nmsu.eduwrote:
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
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
Yes, it really should. Otherwise, some will look like:
clip
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.
That would be up to the distro guys to do, since they can define the
macro how they wish. SuSe might define it to use their corresponding
%{dist} variable. Or, it could be defined to evaluate to empty, if the
rpm version doesn't support it. Or, it could evaluate just the noarch
bit.
The beauty of this is, of course, that you could even skip the
conditionals and just define the macro per distro basis (e.g. in the
redhat-rpm-macros package): the macro in F-10 could be just %{nil} and
in F-11 BuildArch: noarch.
There has been some discussion about versioning rpm specfiles, but I
don't know whether that discussion lead anywhere.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Jussi Lehtola
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Lainaus yersinia yersinia.spi...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
rviny...@cs.nmsu.eduwrote:
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
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
Yes, it really should. Otherwise, some will look like:
clip
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.
That would be up to the distro guys to do, since they can define the macro
how they wish.
He, macro %configure exist everywhere. Not bad at all to have everywhere a
rpm_version macro upstream. Also in the past this could be useful (think to
the %check stanza)
SuSe might define it to use their corresponding %{dist} variable. Or, it
could be defined to evaluate to empty, if the rpm version doesn't support
it. Or, it could evaluate just the noarch bit.
The beauty of this is, of course, that you could even skip the conditionals
and just define the macro per distro basis (e.g. in the redhat-rpm-macros
package): the macro in F-10 could be just %{nil} and in F-11 BuildArch:
noarch.
There has been some discussion about versioning rpm specfiles, but I don't
know whether that discussion lead anywhere.
Noone care of this. the rpm world is different from the deb world : it is
just a matter of fact, not sharp criticism at all.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
On Wednesday 08 July 2009 08:59:43 am Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote: What is the effect on non-Fedora and older distributions (pre F10) if I mark a subpackage (such as documentation) with BuildArch: noarch? the package will attempt to build as noarch only. you cant to it for F-9 and since F-9 is EOL in two days dont. for EL-4 and EL-5 you could probably if the BuildArch out Dennis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 07:59:43 -0600, Jr. wrote:
What is the effect on non-Fedora and older distributions (pre F10) if I
mark a subpackage (such as documentation) with BuildArch: noarch?
You can evaluate the %fedora variable to use this new feature only
for Fedora = 10:
%if 0%{?fedora} 9
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 07:59:43 -0600, Jr. wrote:
What is the effect on non-Fedora and older distributions (pre F10) if I
mark a subpackage (such as documentation) with BuildArch: noarch?
You can evaluate the %fedora variable to use this new feature only
for Fedora = 10:
%if 0%{?fedora} 9
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
Excellent. That's what I was looking for.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 07:59:43 -0600, Jr. wrote:
What is the effect on non-Fedora and older distributions (pre F10) if I
mark a subpackage (such as documentation) with BuildArch: noarch?
You can evaluate the %fedora variable to use this new feature only
for Fedora = 10:
%if 0%{?fedora} 9
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
Excellent. That's what I was looking for.
Except it should be:
%if 0%{?fedora} 9 || 0%{?rhel} 5
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
