[packagers] Smokeping RPM

[Wil Cooley]

On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 21:40 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:

> I think we're ready to move to the FE standard now where they include the 
> disttag in the Release tag.
> 
> Should we also include a repo-macro in the release (I am in favor of 
> that). Something like:
> 
> 	Version: 4.5
> 	Release: 1%{?dist}%{?repo}
> 
> Where dist = .el3 and repo = .rf
> 
> I dislike it for the fact that the release is harder to identify (having 
> the % attached to it closely) and I generally feel this should be left to 
> the buildsystem (which knows best).

The problem with letting the buildsystem doing it is that what ends up
being built is not exactly what you submitted and furthermore, requires
a build system that does it--pre-processing introduces site-specific
variances that may be less tested than the tool's own pre-processing.
For that matter, using RPM macros _is_ letting the build system do it,
since RPM is partially a build tool.

OTOH, you can just ignore the %{?dist} tags and let the build system
preprocess--since it should expand to a null string anyway.

> Dries, Matthias, what do you think ?
> 
> Anyone else having an opinion on this ?

FE uses simply 'dist', so I've been changing my spec files to use that;
my ~/.rpmmacros has:

%dist	.%{dist_tag}.%{vendor_tag}

(the latter two I define above).  Following the 800lb gorilla is
probably the best option--being able to use spec files from FE on EL[34]
systems would be easier.

Wil
-- 
Wil Cooley <wcooley at nakedape.cc>
http://nakedape.cc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.rpmforge.net/pipermail/packagers/attachments/20061205/0510c533/attachment.bin