On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:05:42 +0100 Richard Torkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 11:50 -0500, Michael Jennings wrote:
> > On Friday, 25 February 2005, at 17:42:51 (+0100),
> > Richard Torkar wrote:
> >
> > > Do you have a link to that conversation?
> >
> > Look in that same thread you referred to.
>
> Well I did but I don't see a reason.
> You wrote:
> "We did that before, and it was a huge hassle."
>
> A "hassle" canbe seen as a reason, but I'd love to hear more background.
> What was the hassle? What did go wrong? I've seen spec creation being
> used in large projects without a problem during several years, so I'm
> just curious as to why this was a problem in this project. As always,
> I'm asking nicely. I'm not being arrogant - just curious and maybe
> stupid :-)
the problem is autofoo generates the .spec from the .spec.in - BUT you want to
ship a .spec in the tarball so u can do rpm -ta file.tar.gz - BUT you shouldn't
ship pre-generated files in src tarballs... so at the time we opted for "do it
by hand". thus the hassle.
at the time though we only have 3 or 4 things to package. now we have 20 or
more... it may be time to fix the auto-generation of package info once and for
all... but imho we need to fix it not just for .spec if we do...
--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
裸好多 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本)
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
