[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Re: BuildRoot



On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 15:47 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 13:26 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 12:40 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >> >> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> >>> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 18:41 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Let's file it under hear-say then and move on.
> >> >>> No comment
> >> >>>
> >> >>> c.f. below and note the output of the "echos".
> >> >> I think it's safe to just say this is an example of bad rpm practice.
> >> >> If you really want/need two different sources and versions, package
> >> >> them separately.
> >> > 
> >> > ... you are ignoring the fact that there exist cases where this is
> >> > impossible.
> >> 
> >> Seriously, it's bad practice, don't do it.  But don't mind me, go ahead
> >> and do it, if it's so "impossible" to do otherwise...
> > 
> > Check out any one tree style built GCC+newlib rpm,
> 
> Should be fine, only one
> Version:
> tag.
What you say is equivalent to assigning GCC the version of an OS's libc
rsp. vice versa.

Pardon, but politeness prohibits to further comment on this.

> > check out autogen + libopts (currently under review).
> 
> Couldn't find that one.  Pointer?
currently under review == Review request in bugzilla:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814

autogen-5.8.x ships with libopts-27.1.2.tar.gz integrated
A proper way to build libopts would be to generate
libopts-27.1.2*rpms and autogen-5.8.x*rpms from it.

Ralf



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]