Till Maas wrote:
> Hiyas,
>
> I noticed that the RPMMacros page does not mention that
> %{_sharestatedir} expands to %{_prefix}/com on CentOS and probably also
> RHEL:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros
>
> Also it would be nice to have the notes about differences in other
> releases inside a admonition, to make them easier visible.
>
> Regards
> Till
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
Sounds like a great idea for a PackagingDraft.

-J

--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

On 02/09/2010 12:58 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> Hiyas,
>
> I noticed that the RPMMacros page does not mention that
> %{_sharestatedir} expands to %{_prefix}/com on CentOS
This would be "simply plain wrong".

The GNU Standards define it as:

sharedstatedir'
The directory for installing architecture-independent data files
which the programs modify while they run.

On Fedora it evaluates to /var/lib, which is a meaningful setting.

%{_prefix}/com matches to the default the GNU Standards describe, but in
a distro's constext, this would seem to be "simply plain wrong" to me ==
I consider the setting on CentOS to be a bug.

Ralf
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

> It is, but it's not something that's going to change within the release.
> We need to ducment the difference so people porting a Fedora package to
> EPEL-5 know not to rely on %{_sharestatedir} there.
>
> -Toshio
>

yes, I see that some day's ago.



--
------------

Itamar Reis Peixoto

e-mail/msn/google talk/sip: itamar@ispbrasil.com.br
skype: itamarjp
icq: 81053601
+55 11 4063 5033
+55 34 3221 8599
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

2010/2/14 Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:
> %{buildroot} probably fits best in the "Other macros" section, because
> it is a macro to be used inside the spec. Bug the %{_buildrootdir}
> macros like the other RPM directory macros is afaik supposed to be used
> only with rpmbuild --define to change the behaviour of rpmbuild.

Was typing the nonexistent %{_buildroot} instead of %{buildroot} a typo?

On a somewhat related note, some directory macros (e.g.,
%_keyringpath) contain trailing slashes, while others don't. Does
this matter enough to be worth addressing?
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging