packages: ncurses/ncurses.spec - make it build on Titanium, try not to brea...

[Elan Ruusamäe]

On Tuesday 02 February 2010 16:23:41 Bartosz Świątek wrote:
> 2010/2/2 Elan Ruusamäe <glen at pld-linux.org>:
> > On Tuesday 02 February 2010 16:04:46 shadzik wrote:
> >> Author: shadzik                      Date: Tue Feb  2 14:04:46 2010 GMT
> >> Module: packages                      Tag: HEAD
> >> ---- Log message:
> >> - make it build on Titanium, try not to break build on Th - let's see if
> >> that succeeded
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> +%if "%{pld_release}" != "ti"
> >>  %attr(755,root,root) %ghost /%{_lib}/libtinfow.so.6
> >>  %attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/libncursesw.so.*.*
> >>  %attr(755,root,root) %ghost %{_libdir}/libncursesw.so.5
> >>  %attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/libtinfow.so.*.*
> >>  %attr(755,root,root) %ghost %{_libdir}/libtinfow.so.5
> >> +%else
> >> +%attr(755,root,root) %ghost /%{_lib}/libtinfow.so.5
> >> +%attr(755,root,root) %ghost /%{_lib}/libncursesw.so.5
> >> +%endif
> >
> > this has exceeded sane amount of the nesting level of ifdefs, please move
> > the branch specific spec to a dedicated branch, both branches be nicer
> > and more easier to update. there isn't so much changes in a spec that
> > such complexity of following the conditions (to verify nothing got broken
> > after a change) pays off.
> >
> > same applies to openssl.spec
>
> This is the way Hawk told me to deal with such problems - exactly not
> to have dozens of branches - therefore I'm dealing with them that way.
> Two or three more conditions doesn't make it less readable. Request
> rejected.

hawk: tell your internörs to reconsider trashing the HEAD, kernel.spec's are 
in branches, why can't this be, this is no longer a simple change.

to shadzik: do not remove cc: when replying even if you post gets rejected.

-- 
glen