On Wednesday 22 April 2009 23:57:08 Stefan Teleman wrote: > Adriaan de Groot wrote: > > Extra files in the plist indicate a bug in the spec -- they should be > > completely deterministic on supported platforms. > > Before we get to deep into the completely deterministic aspect of the > spec files, the spec file for stdcxx at bionicmutton is very badly > broken, and has been very badly broken for several months now.
This is unrelated to rebuild-after-fixing-plist, isn't it? What does the determinism of the specfiles have to do with the rest of your comment? Are you saying that the specfiles should *not* be deterministic and should use wildcard plists so that the packages contain whatever options were automatically detected? Anyway, those are secondary issues. Help me out here on the stdcxx thing, because I have trouble interpreting "badly broken" in a way that can make me fix things. Is "several months" four weeks, eight weeks, twelve or more? Perhaps you can give me a revision number (from mercurial, so the long hex ID would be best, "hg head | grep changeset" will do). The specfiles are supposed to run the same scripts that you have created in Dude, with the same flags. "Supposed to" - I may have missed an update in Dude, that's for sure. So some more detail about what's broken would be helpful. Not that anecdotal evidence is worth much, but it builds for me, 32- and 64- bit on an OSOL machine and 32- and 64- bit on a SPARC S10 machine. Builds and is subsequently useful for the software stack on top of it. [ade]
