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

[Elan Ruusamäe]

On Tuesday 02 February 2010 17:41:40 Artur Wroblewski wrote:
> 2010/2/2 Elan Ruusamäe <glen at pld-linux.org>:
> > 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.
>
> If I reckon well we had discussion about that in the past. And here goes
> the mess. Enjoy cleaning it up.
>
> Best regards,
>
> w

if you refer to the "%py_version" vs "%pld_release" comparision, then these 
are totally different, threads, large poritions conditioned out over the spec 
became headache to read eventually. especially if you need to update only 
one "condition branch", that's what is this email thread initiated.

anyway, note sent to hawk who seems to control the decisions, so lets wait 
what he decides.

-- 
glen