Re: SPECS: vim.spec - with python,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:41:28PM +0200, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote: Mariusz Mazur wrote: Dnia poniedziałek, 18 czerwca 2007, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz napisał: OO. For all the minimum requirements there's always vim-static and e3. -static is in contradiction with minimum. Yup. We should have full vim with everything (X, python, perl, ruby, brainfuck, you name it) and a vim-minimal for those, that want to have the lightest version possible. Agreed. what's the current conclusion? regards, wrobell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 Jul 25, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
perhaps add possibility to query srcheaders to rpm?
Already there
rpm -qp foo*.src.rpm
What you really want is some means to choose amongst
src and multiple binary headers when querying a specfile.
Immediately after the request for querying only the srpm header
is the request to query only a single subpkg header. The implementation
issue is the same even if the usage case is different.
The hack to choose 1-of-N headers is at (linenum wrto wrto rpm5.org
cvs HEAD)
build/spec.c:782
case RPMQV_SPECFILE:
for (pkg = spec-packages; pkg != NULL; pkg = pkg-next) {
/* If no target was specified, display all packages.
* Packages with empty file lists are not produced.
*/
/* XXX DIEDIEDIE: this logic looks flawed. */
if (target == NULL || pkg-fileList != NULL)
xx = qva-qva_showPackage(qva, ts, pkg-header);
}
break;
The srpm header is in spec-sourceHeader.
The real design issue is how to pass the 1of-N to the routine
from the CLI.
hth
73 de Jeff
___
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 Tuesday 24 July 2007 21:02:36 Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jul 24, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:24:49AM +0200, Tomasz Wittner wrote:
On Thu 19. of July 2007, 16:04, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
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...
But why? Better have broken tool than use suitable language?
Better broken in some corner cases than unusable for bootstrap...
(anyway, redefining Version in middle of .spec is tricky, as you
can see
from %{version} behaviour)
Tricky only because noone has asked.
I can certainly permit
Version: %%{version}
%define version whatever-you-want
to delay the expansion, and add an additional macro expansion
before adding RPMTAG_VERSION to *.rpm package headers, if that is
desirable.
A delayed expansion is most definiitely desirable for Release: fields
because of the pesky %{?dist} that has been injected everywhere by
Fedora, and will take years to phase out, sigh.
perhaps add possibility to query srcheaders to rpm?
73 de Jeff
--
glen
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: pld-builder.new: client/make-request.sh - -C/--config-file command...
Dnia środa, 25 lipca 2007, Adam Gołębiowski napisał: On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 05:14:26PM +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: however i use code from WORKING branch. And which do we prefer - HEAD or WORKING? Sources from which branch are used with Ac/Th builders? WORKING stopped being used in ac a long time ago. Unless something has changed, both ac and th use head. -- Oceniaj innych po zamiarach, a siebie po wynikach. Guy Kawasaki Wykształcenie jest rzeczą godną podziwu, acz dobrze czasem pamiętać, że niczego, co warto wiedzieć, nie da się kogoś nauczyć. Oscar Wilde ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
