On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 06:39:20PM +0100, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> now ... y2pmbuild is just a replacment for build/rpmbuild ... so what
> ever you do before and after the build is done ... doesnt touch that
> part at all. or do i miss some point?
You might find the answer yourself if you ask your
On 2006-03-13 17:28:25 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> I have 10.0, 9.3, 9.2 and 9.1
>
> And I have a different process for signing RPMs, where to deposit
> binary RPMs and builds logs, where to fetch sources from (with a local
> cache or from the SVN sandbox), automatically transform URLs to fetc
Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2006-03-13 12:14:47 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
/etc/y2pmbuild/files/*/etc/rpm/macros
Ok. Unfortunately y2pmbuild is no option for me, I have my own build
scripts that better fit my environment (and that support any
BuildRequires syntax).
i am getting bored telling
On 2006-03-13 12:14:47 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> >/etc/y2pmbuild/files/*/etc/rpm/macros
>
> Ok. Unfortunately y2pmbuild is no option for me, I have my own build
> scripts that better fit my environment (and that support any
> BuildRequires syntax).
i am getting bored telling you that the y2
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 11:26:38AM +0100, Adrian Schroeter wrote:
> We do not speak about the lib from the compiler here, but about independend
> libs on top of it. You do only get different sonames for libs, if the build
Ah, ok. Then we were really talking about different things here.
Robert
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:14:47PM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> It would be nice if RPM(build) did something like
> #include /etc/rpm.d/*
> when pulling macro definition files because that way, one could
> provide his macros as an RPM package and "BuildRequires" it in the
> spec file.
Actually
Ludwig Nussel wrote:
On Sunday 12 March 2006 16:40, Pascal Bleser wrote:
Following "issue": to set the %{DISTRIBUTION} header in my RPMs, I use
the following trick in my spec files:
Distribution: %(head -1 /etc/SuSE-release)
That's nasty.
Nasty but works, except for 10.1 betas (because the
Am Monday 13 March 2006 09:58 schrieb Robert Schiele:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:36:37AM +0100, Adrian Schroeter wrote:
> > Am Friday 10 March 2006 19:41 schrieb Robert Schiele:
> > > Nah, that is what shared library versioning is for. Putting runtime
> > > libraries in an extra directory is onl
On Sunday 12 March 2006 16:40, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> Following "issue": to set the %{DISTRIBUTION} header in my RPMs, I use
> the following trick in my spec files:
>
> Distribution: %(head -1 /etc/SuSE-release)
That's nasty.
> When one doesn't explicitely specify the Distribution: tag, the RPM
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:36:37AM +0100, Adrian Schroeter wrote:
> Am Friday 10 March 2006 19:41 schrieb Robert Schiele:
> > Nah, that is what shared library versioning is for. Putting runtime
> > libraries in an extra directory is only needed if the author of the
> > software did not understand
Am Sunday 12 March 2006 16:41 schrieb Pascal Bleser:
> I'd just like to stress this mail again, it's pretty critical for us 3rd
> party packagers.
>
> Could someone forward it to some yast2 developer who could answer this ?
until now YaST does use the newer builded package. (SL 9.1 did care about
Am Sunday 12 March 2006 16:40 schrieb Pascal Bleser:
> Hi folks
>
> Following "issue": to set the %{DISTRIBUTION} header in my RPMs, I use
> the following trick in my spec files:
>
> Distribution: %(head -1 /etc/SuSE-release)
>
> When one doesn't explicitely specify the Distribution: tag, the RPM
Am Friday 10 March 2006 19:41 schrieb Robert Schiele:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 03:33:05PM +0100, Adrian Schroeter wrote:
> > the should be under the same prefix IMHO. The should not be in some
> > standard lib path to avoid clashes with existing gcc4 build libs. This
> > means also that
>
> Nah, t
13 matches
Mail list logo
