From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110123/002313.html | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 114 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110123/002313.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110123/002313.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110123/002313.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110123/002313.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..bc3152c06 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/20110123/002313.html @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] Compatibility: %mdkversion macro? + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] Compatibility: %mdkversion macro?

+ Michael Scherer + misc at zarb.org +
+ Sun Jan 23 00:13:10 CET 2011 +

+
+ +
Le vendredi 21 janvier 2011 à 15:45 +0200, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
+> On 17.01.2011 10:38, Michael scherer wrote:
+> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 01:19:29AM +0100, Samuel Verschelde wrote:
+> >> Le dimanche 16 janvier 2011 00:07:56, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
+> >>> Hi all!
+> >>>
+> >>> Should we have a %mdkversion (and %mdkver/%mdvver) that is hardcoded to
+> >>> 201100 for the time being, or should we not have one at all?
+> >>>
+> >>> Not having it will cause any src.rpms that have any
+> >>> "%if %mdkversion < x" to fail to build.
+> >>>
+> >>> I'm strongly in favor of having it for compatibility reasons, so that
+> >>> most MDV src.rpms keep building on Mageia for the time being, including
+> >>> those provided by any 3rd party packagers.
+> >>>
+> >>> Not having the macro will cause us to lose that compatibility for very
+> >>> little benefit, IMO. It could maybe be removed after several releases,
+> >>> but not before.
+> >>>
+> >>> However, it seems blino disagreed with this, and he thinks we should not
+> >>> have these macros at all.
+> >>>
+> >>> What do other people think?
+> >>
+> >> If not having those macros means we can't compile mdv SRPMS on mageia, then 
+> >> I'd prefer we keep it.
+> > 
+> > then keep them forever ?
+> > 
+> > Because for one, mdkversion should have disappeared when the suffix was changed,
+> > something like 5 years ago. And the fact we still rely on it is not a good sign.
+> > 
+> > More ever, even on Mandriva, most of them do not make much sense. Most of the software
+> > are not backported ( as the usage of the macros is mainly for stuff replaced 
+> > by filetrigger ), and they are never cleaned.
+> > 
+> > On the file trigger side, we have most of the macros going back to 2009.0, where we
+> > can't backport anything on the BS. And 2010.0 for the trigger for web application, and 
+> > I do not think we backport them usually ( as people barely see the value of packaging 
+> > them... ).
+> > 
+> > So I think we will not have much problem, except this force us to do more cleaning.
+> > Cleaning that obviously didn't happened before, as we are needing to do it now.
+> > 
+> > So drop it, have more generic macros, and smarter policy.
+> 
+> The problem is not backports IMO, it is building 3rdparty src.rpm or old
+> src.rpm on Mageia (i.e. forward-porting), which won't work if we do not
+> have %mdkversion.
+
+We could have the macro in a specific rpm. This way, it would be easier
+to find when we need them ( ie searching on BuildRequires ) so we can
+expect what is needed, and we could more easily rebuild and update if we
+need to change the macros ( like, if they change on mandriva level ).
+
+
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+
+
+ + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1