On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Martin Winter wrote:
My idea is to test each patchwork on it’s own and then do one (it it all
passes) or multiple runs of the proposed tree - but a complete run of
the compliance tests. Will start on this as soon as I manage to checkout
the proposed tree (see other message)
Ok, just note that the versions in the proposed tree may differ slightly
from those in patchwork. Indeed, they may differ significantly if I have
some updated version queued from the one in patchwork. ;)
Both patches are in there. The issue is that the new spec file doesn’t
install the pim init/systemd startup files (probably was based on the
time before I submitted these). Just needs some update to add these
Ok, I'll have to sit down and look at the latest Fedora one and see how to
update it.
for my versions. I think the spec file you proposed is much more
flexible and I would prefer that one, but it would need to deal with
both versions (or provide 2 versions?)
Yeah, the RedHat Linux^W^WFedora spec file I've maintained, I try to
support a range of versions. It makes testing easier, and (as discussed
before) testing was the primary thing I liked having package-building
stuff in the tree for. The upstream Fedora doesn't do that, they have
release-specific spec files and just drop support for old stuff.
I'll see if I can update it to work for the more recent systemd ones too.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma p...@jakma.org @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship.
-- Ralph Nader_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
