Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-buildservice (113 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-buildservice] BuildRequires SuSE <-> RedHat...
  • From: Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 00:01:48 +0200
  • Message-id: <447234CC.9060002@xxxxxxxxx>
Hash: SHA1

Michael Schroeder wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:33:48PM +0200, Dr. Peter Poeml wrote:
>> On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:34:19PM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:09:33PM +0200, Dr. Peter Poeml wrote:
>>>> It would be even nicer, if the %defined/%undefined macros would work.
>>>> They exist on SUSE, Fedora, Mandrake.
>>>> It would be possible to use
>>>> %if %{defined suse_version}
>>>> or
>>>> %if %{undefined suse_version}
>>>> which is much better to read, especially as soon as it gets more
>>>> complicated.
>>> They now work.
>> They don't seem to work in every platform -- is that possible?
>> see
> Yes, I said that the backend now understands then. They don't work
> in SL10.0 as they came with rpm-4.4.2.
> We could also define them for the old distributions, but that would
> mean that the src.rpms wouldn't built anymore. Opinions?

Bad idea IMO :\

I think that rebuilding of src.rpms on "old", pristine SUSE Linux
versions is not a feature that should be discarded.

For the record and/or people joining the thread now, note that the
following, equivalent (albeit more cryptic) notation works with 4.x.x:

%if %{?suse_version:1}0
%if %{?!suse_version:1}0

Personally, I would much favor using the notation as above and keeping
the possibility of rebuilding src.rpms on pristine SL <= 10.0. The nicer
notation isn't worth the sacrifice IMO.

What do you guys think ?

- --
-o) Pascal Bleser
/\\ <pascal.bleser@xxxxxxxxx> <guru@xxxxxxxxxxx>
_\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)


< Previous Next >