On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 10:11 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 09:57 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 17:15 +0200, Petr Ĺ abata wrote:
> > For the record, there appear to be only 25 binary packages that
> > depend on /bin coreutils paths[1];
>
> I just took a quick look at the systemtap package. It has:
>
> # On RHEL[45], /bin/mktemp comes from the 'mktemp' package. On newer
> # distributions, /bin/mktemp comes from the 'coreutils' package. To
> # avoid a specific RHEL[45] Requires, we'll do a file-based require.
> Requires: /bin/mktemp
>
> On RHEL5 the mktemp package only provides a /bin/mktemp and
> no /usr/bin/mktemp. Now RHEL5 is fairly old and this Requires can be
> changed for Fedora of course. But it might be that there are other
> packages that share a spec file between RHEL and Fedora and have a
> /bin
> instead of /usr/bin Requires for this reason.
RHEL[45] is dead, so feel free to drop this. Also polluting spec file
with conditionals (or any other things) for unsupported/unrelated
distros just create problems.
I won't argue about this particular case. RHEL4/5 is indeed pretty old
and I wouldn't mind dropping support for it.
But in general I like it when my spec files just work for building
packages across Fedora/RHEL/SoftwareCollections even if that requires a
few conditionals. For example I maintain valgrind and have it setup so
that I can use the same spec file to build for "regular" Fedora, but
also do a copr build for older Fedora or CentOS [1]. And the same spec
file can be used to build the Developer Toolset software collection. It
makes sure that there is a way to get the latest upstream (and
backports) make it to different users. Which, in my experience, creates
a better package for everybody since bug fixes are shared.
Cheers,
Mark
[1]
https://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2017/06/18/valgrind-3-13-0-for-fedora...