[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 23:01 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 15:47 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> 
> >>> 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.
> 
> This discussion is digressing even further offtopic, but...
> IMO, the "proper way"  would be to build bootstraps (gcc+newlib and
> autogen+libopts), then use those to build *separately* each of
> gcc,newlib and autogen,libopts.
So you are demanding to abandon features, due to rpm defects?

BTW: The work-around is pretty easy: Don't use %version in rpm specs,
but hard-code them or redirect them to other %defines.

Ralf




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