On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 08:30 -0700, Henrique Junior wrote:
> Here is the answer from the team:
> "The fedora build setup has git branches for each release EL-5, EL-6,
> F17, F19, Master, so there is no problem to have different .SPEC files
> for each branch" and
> "And is perfectly fine to have conditionals as well:"
> 
> From now I'll team up with Rakesh to get ntop in EPEL6

Glad to hear that!

Good luck!

Volker
> 
>  
> --
> Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior
> http://about.me/henriquejunior
> 
>         
>         ______________________________________________________________
>         From: Tom H <[log in to unmask]>
>         To: SL Users <[log in to unmask]> 
>         Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 10:28 AM
>         Subject: Re: ntop for EL6
>         
>         
>         On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia
>         <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>         > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Henrique Junior
>         <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>         >>
>         >> I'm already a Fedora packager (not an experient one) and
>         I'd love to put
>         >> ntop in EPEL (it is in EPEL for EL5). The problem in
>         maintain ntop in EPEL6
>         >> is that Fedora now uses systemd to manage our services
>         instead of sysv. It
>         >> is a Fedora policy to keep only one spec file and that spec
>         is not
>         >> compatible with EL6 anymore. That is why I believe that
>         RPMForge is the
>         >> better option.
>         >> I'm open to ideas to make this package as useful as
>         possible.
>         >
>         > RHEL 6 still uses primarily init scripts. Fedora 17 or
>         later, however,
>         > uses systemd, and the disparity is going to become more of a
>         problem
>         > for EPEL and Repoforge package maintainers. We're going to
>         have to
>         > publish two startup files, and install based on which OS is
>         selected.
>         >
>         > I'm facing similar work with Subversion and the svnserve
>         init script.
>         
>         1) F16 not F17.
>         
>         2) See my previous reply about shipping both startup files on
>         a sysvinit system.
>         
>         3) For a systemd box, if both startup files are present,
>         AFAIK, it'll
>         favor the systemd service file. But you can just ship a
>         sysvinit rc
>         file and systemd'll start the daemon using it. (I don't know
>         what
>         EPEL's policies are, but in Fedora you can't switch from
>         sysvinit to
>         systemd once a version's released; you have to do so during
>         pre-release.)
>         
>         
>