Gregory Leblanc wrote:
>
> On 20 Feb 2001 17:19:39 -0500, Mark Amidon wrote:
> [snip]
> > One would also bump the %{RELEASE} for such details as "built for
> > RedHat" and "built for SuSE"; clearly, the original Source Code is
> > staying the same.
>
> Why would you bump the release number (4) when re-building for another
> RPM distro? There's nothing in the spec files that I change to rebuild
> for another distro, as I do all of my changes by building in a vmware
> machine, which has things defined nicely in a .rpmmacros.

You'd bump the %{RELEASE} "number" just because this is a different
"release" of the package. For example, do you really want the RedHat
release of:
my-splufty-app-1.0beta-1.i386.rpm
...to have the exact same name as the release you built for SuSE,
complete
with distinct autogenerated dependencies?

If I were the sysadmin of a benchmark operation, and thus had machines
of different distos in-house, I wouldn't want the various RPM files that
I downloaded for testing distinguished _only_ by their internal
contents. In fact, I'd consider it polite of the application programmer
to put the name of the target disto in the %{RELEASE} name, e.g.:
my-splufty-app-1.0beta-1_RedHat.i386.rpm
my-splufty-app-1.0beta-1_SuSE.i386.rpm
my-splufty-app-1.0beta-1mdk.i586.rpm
etc.

(Yes, I'm well aware that SuSE has a nasty habit of leaving such details
as %{VERSION}, %{RELEASE}, and even %{ARCH} out of their files' names.
That's a different rant.)

--
Mark Amidon | "Even within the walls of Microsoft,
amidon@... | Microsoft Outlook is known as
(978) 251-1987 x252 | 'Look Out!'."
http://www.whatiflinux.com | -- Erik Heino



_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@...
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list