Re: http://hardware4linux.info/
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 05:10:55PM +0200, Cezary Krzyzanowski wrote: > > Oh, you can mail the author afterwards -- he's responsive, > > from mandriva and actually knows what pld is and took the > > effort of bugging us on irc about his solution. Hm, someone from Fedora told it's dead: http://lwn.net/Comments/242055/ > http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/SPECS/hwreport.spec -- WBR, Michael Shigorin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: http://hardware4linux.info/
Dnia 19-07-2007, Cz o godzinie 16:21 +0200, Mariusz Mazur napisał(a): > We don't have anything for storing and browsing through hardware profiles and > the website in the subject looks all webish2.0 and colorfull and has round > edges. If someone could get through the software, package it and maybe send > it to both ac and th, that'd be neat (/me -enotime). Oh, you can mail the > author afterwards -- he's responsive, from mandriva and actually knows what > pld is and took the effort of bugging us on irc about his solution. If it > takes off, both users and developers could probably benefit from it (e.g. I'd > know beforehand what laptops are supported by pld out of the box or > something). > http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/SPECS/hwreport.spec [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
http://hardware4linux.info/
We don't have anything for storing and browsing through hardware profiles and the website in the subject looks all webish2.0 and colorfull and has round edges. If someone could get through the software, package it and maybe send it to both ac and th, that'd be neat (/me -enotime). Oh, you can mail the author afterwards -- he's responsive, from mandriva and actually knows what pld is and took the effort of bugging us on irc about his solution. If it takes off, both users and developers could probably benefit from it (e.g. I'd know beforehand what laptops are supported by pld out of the box or something). -- Judge others by their intentions and yourself by your results. Guy Kawasaki Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught. Oscar Wilde ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: rpm bug?
On Thursday 19 July 2007 11:44:14 Marcin Król wrote: > > not sure how to put this in proper words, but querying binheader results > > this, one should query srcheaders. > > Anyone brave enough to make requried changes into builder script? :) well. somebody mentioned that builder script should not depend on any higher language liker perl so... -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: rpm bug?
> not sure how to put this in proper words, but querying binheader results > this, > one should query srcheaders. Anyone brave enough to make requried changes into builder script? :) M. ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: rpm bug?
On Thursday 19 July 2007 10:50, Marcin Król wrote: > Maybe this is feature required for something else to work, I don't know. > For me its a bug which should be nailed :) not sure how to put this in proper words, but querying binheader results this, one should query srcheaders. see how this script works: http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/test/specinfo.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] pld/test $ ./specinfo.pl ~/rpm/pld/SPECS/mozilla-firefox.spec PACKAGE_NAME mozilla-firefox PACKAGE_VERSION 2.0.0.4 PACKAGE_RELEASE 1.1 mozilla-firefox-2.0.0.4-1.1 /home/glen/rpm/pld/SRPMS/mozilla-firefox-2.0.0.4-1.1.src.rpm /home/glen/rpm/pld/RPMS/mozilla-firefox-2.0.0.4-1.1.i686.rpm /home/glen/rpm/pld/RPMS/mozilla-firefox-libs-2.0.0.4-1.1.i686.rpm /home/glen/rpm/pld/RPMS/mozilla-firefox-lang-en-2.0.0.4-1.1.i686.rpm /home/glen/rpm/pld/RPMS/mozilla-firefox-addon-tidy-0.8.3.9-1.1.i686.rpm just using %dump you'll get last binpkg. -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
rpm bug?
Hello.
I'm not good in uderstanding how rpm internally works so don't blam me if I'm
writing obvious things :)
I think I've found bug in .spec processing. I'll show that on example. Our
builder script is using following command to get package name and version for
auto- CVS tag:
rpmbuild --macros
/usr/lib/rpm/macros:/usr/lib/rpm/i686-linux/macros:/etc/rpm/macros.*:/etc/rpm/macros:/etc/rpm/i686-linux/macros:~/etc/.rpmmacros:~/.rpmmacros:/home/users/krol/.builder-rpmmacros
--nodigest --nosignature --nobuild --define 'prep %{echo:dummy: PACKAGE_NAME
%{name} }%dump' --nodeps mozilla-firefox.spec
Main package in mozilla-firefox.spec has version 2.0.0.5 however above command
returns PACKAGE_VERSION = 0.8.4.0 which is version of mozilla-firefox-tidy
subpackage. Since it is last subpackage defined in spec it seems like rpm just
take last "Version: something" as package version instead of using version of
main package.
Maybe this is feature required for something else to work, I don't know. For me
its a bug which should be nailed :)
M.
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
