Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700815

--- Comment #11 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2011-05-23 11:58:22 EDT --- Thanks Tom.

(In reply to comment #10)

I had a quick look and it looks fine to me. You don't want to use the %{mingw_pkg_name} macro?

Yes, that's right, I don't particularly like the %{mingw_pkg_name} macro name, it's just way too long and verbose. %{pkg_name} or %{name1} (like you've used in many places) would be much more readable.

Besides, the current ("old") example spec file uses the literal name everywhere and not the %{mingw_pkg_name} macro.

Compare yourself: %files -n mingw32-gtk3 %files -n mingw32-%{mingw_pkg_name}

Also, the new package naming scheme causes the debuginfo package to be named mingw-gtk3-debuginfo versus the old mingw32-gtk3-debuginfo. I don't think this is an issue, but I may be overlooking something.

Yeah, that's my concern too.

I'm planning to take a look at the -debuginfo subpackage generating macros soon to see if it's possible to make them nicer. I'm pretty confident that I can get rid of the need to manually insert %{?_mingw32_debug_package} in every spec file. I'm thinking of having per-arch subpackages (mingw32-debuginfo and mingw64-debuginfo) which are controlled by magical defines ('%define mingw32_debug_package 1' and '%define mingw64_debug_package 1').