On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 08:23:50PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 09:53:55AM +0200, Kim Bisgaard wrote: > > I have a machine following f19, are the spec-files for f18 in good > > shape? because if they are I can start to see if they will compile > > there... > > probably the reason people use ATrpms is for the good shape of > packages, so yes, they are in quite good shape, and while I haven't > looked into the major changes in f19, I'm quite confident that they > will rebuilt quite fine against current development/19 repos. > > I guess soon we'll officially start building against f19. Features are > 100% and the beta is just a few days ahead.
actually I felt bit challenged to setup f19 support and just did so. An interesting new feature of rpm in f19 is that it checks changelog dates and spits out warnings if the day of the week doesn't match the given date! :) Other than that some test builds of ffmpeg for example seem to work well. I'll let the builders running, and we'll see what will come out of them. The usual fast bootstrap procedure with new Fedora releases is to allow building against the previous release, e.g. in this case offer the ATrpms packages from f18, so that in theory one pass will do everything. Then to make sure all is self-sustained the builds are redone w/o the f18 repo present. So at the end the packages are build only against f19 bits. As f19 != f19, e.g the beta is not to be assumed to be the same as the GA, the same procedure applies to the GA: Once the packages are known to be frozen on the upstream repo, e.g. there are only installer and mirroring preparations going on, all f19 packages will be rebuilt with their final fc19 tag. Previous tags will look like fc18.something. Have fun! -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net _______________________________________________ atrpms-devel mailing list atrpms-devel@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
