On Aug 4, 2008, at 7:12 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:


Les Mikesell wrote:
Do they really consider backwards-compatibility to be a distro-
specific hack?


3 lines in a spec file? It's maintainable, sustainable and not a
very user unfriendly thing to do.


Sounds suicidal to me.

Funny. Suicide is for mortals.



Please stop the histrionics, chicken little. The sky is not falling ...

Joe Orton is merely remarking that a patch in the "rawhide" branch
does not help other branches like "f9", "f8", etc etc, ...

Do the math: Maintaining a patch in a "rawhide" spec file that never
appears

in other, commonly used branches of a VCS is pointless.

73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

--On Monday, August 04, 2008 9:30 PM -0400 Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com>
wrote:



Joe Orton is merely remarking that a patch in the "rawhide" branch
does not help other branches like "f9", "f8", etc etc, ...

Do the math: Maintaining a patch in a "rawhide" spec file that never
appears in other, commonly used branches of a VCS is pointless.


The raw Subversion tarball has autoconfig stuff to make it adapt to a wide
variety of systems. Why is it so hard to get RPM to do the same thing, esp.
on two distros that are so similar?

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Aug 5, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Kenneth Porter wrote:

--On Monday, August 04, 2008 9:30 PM -0400 Jeff Johnson
<n3npq@mac.com> wrote:
The raw Subversion tarball has autoconfig stuff to make it adapt to
a wide variety of systems. Why is it so hard to get RPM to do the
same thing, esp. on two distros that are so similar?


Its not hard, see the trivial 3 line patch to a spec file to handle
the adaptation

to a wider variety of systems.

But that misses the context of Joe Orton's reply in the bugzilla RFE
entirely.


The rawhide *.spec is targeted at rawhide, not everywhere, because of
the branch
structure in use by Fedora. That has nothing whatsoever to do with
whether Fedora
is "suicidal" or "RPM sux!", there's a perfectly obvious engineering
explanation for

why the RFE was declined.

73 de Jeff

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:32 AM +0300 Axel Thimm
<Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net> wrote:



I'd go for the latter. That is how I also deal with
python-devel/python(abi)/python-abi for older CentOSes or xfree86 ->
xorg changes (see the compat package at ATrpms). It is the cleanest
and less maintenance needing solution, as you will not need to touch
the subversion specfile, at least not in this part.


I'm inclined to agree. Fundamentally the problem isn't in the Subversion
package, but with the split in the Perl package. The solution should not be
to pollute dependent packages with conditional hacks but to create a
one-time stand-in for the future package split in the RHEL/CentOS branch
that will occur when the Fedora Perl packaging change gets pushed down into
RHEL.



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel