Hi, On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 06:05:24AM -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote: > > > >> configure: *** checking feature: libsidplay *** > > > >> configure: *** for plug-ins: sid *** > > > >> checking for libsidplay 1.36.x... checking sidplay/player.h > > usability... > > > >> no > > the builds did not succeed due to the missing gcc-c++ package. > > > I think you should include gcc-c++ as a base package on your > building system, that is, without the need of being specified in any > spec. This way, it would be the same as Fedora, which does not > require it as a BR.
The reason it is not inby default is that it pulls in the C++ standard library which is rather big and makes chroot handling taking longer. There are rather few packages in the whole set of the packages at ATrpms (or Fedora itself for that matter), that require gcc-c++. Therefore it dies speed up the builds a lot. OTOH by now the chroot management is quite fast and a couple more seconds don't really justify this anymore. > Also, gstreamer-plugins-ugly did not succeed in F11 because I used > these minimum versions: > > %define gst_minver 0.10.28 > %define gstpb_minver 0.10.28 > > If you change them to > > %define gst_minver 0.10.25 > %define gstpb_minver 0.10.25 > > I think it should compile for F11 either (but I did not try). I guess the minimum version were there for a reason, or not? Given that F11 will see the end of its days in less than two months maybe we should just skip it? Otherwise if someone wants to experiment with which versions are proper for a sane build and runtime behaviour, we can still add F11 back to gst-plugins-ugly. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpkGmVfwcTgm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ atrpms-devel mailing list atrpms-devel@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
