On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 00:12, Han Boetes wrote:
> Yes I agree but there is a new macro now so after I figure out how that
> works I will adjust the spec to that. I think we all agree on that :)
Yeah, the instructions for %mklibname are quite vague. I don't know how
to use it yet.
Austin
--
"Quel Qun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could we please use %buildroot instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, it
no good, it's better to use variable than macros.
Austin Acton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 23:11, Han Boetes wrote:
> > That is a good idea indeed. But... They are different kind of packages
> > actually. I will make another skel.spec for it. lib-skel.spec :)
>
> Okay, this makes no sense to me. Why would you need two spec
On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 23:11, Han Boetes wrote:
> That is a good idea indeed. But... They are different kind of packages
> actually. I will make another skel.spec for it. lib-skel.spec :)
Okay, this makes no sense to me. Why would you need two spec files?
Look at my spec file. It has lib, lib-de
Quel Qun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Olivier Thauvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am not the best to explain this point, but because I rebuild
> > packages f= or=20 ppc, I won't go against people who works on
> > foreign arch.
>
> Speaking of foreign,
*g*
> Shouldn't the language management
Austin Acton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 19:49, Quel Qun wrote:
> > Could we please use %buildroot instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, it would
> > really look more consistent.
It does. I like it. I will use it :)
m-x replace-string $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %buildroot
> True, but does it R
Austin Acton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip: other icon method]
> I don't see how that's any worse than one tarball. While it is longer,
> I don't think clarity should take a back-seat to brevity.
You are absolutely right but on the other hand there is nothing bad
about the one archive method.
--- Original Message ---
From: Olivier Thauvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Austin Acton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Cooker] New release of the skeleton spec-file
>Le Monday 20 January 2003 02:00, Austin Acton a =E9crit :
>> Also, the skeleton should d
--- Original Message ---
From: Austin Acton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Cooker] New release of the skeleton spec-file
>On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 19:49, Quel Qun wrote:
>> Could we please use %buildroot instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, it
>> would really
Le Monday 20 January 2003 02:00, Austin Acton a écrit :
> Also, the skeleton should definitely include lib-stuff.
> %define libname lib%name%major
This is now obsolete, you should use %mklibname macros in your spec.
As I understand, for ia64, lib will be named lib64%name to permit install of
lib
On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 21:12, R.I.P. Deaddog wrote:
> How about making another skeleton spec which contains the libname stuff?
I've attached my own personal skel. I am not suggesting people use it..
it far from perfect. But it has all the lib stuff.
> BTW, it's time to introduce the %mklibname m
On 2003-01-19(Sun) 21:00:36 -0500, Austin Acton wrote:
> I don't see any advantage of packaging the three icons as one archive.
> I use the following...
[]
> I don't see how that's any worse than one tarball. While it is longer,
> I don't think clarity should take a back-seat to brevity.
On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 14:56, Han Boetes wrote:
> > I just updated the skeleton-spec file and also made a new rpm with it,
> > just to make sure I didn't make any mistakes.
I don't see any advantage of packaging the three icons as one archive.
I use the following...
Source1:%{name}48.png
On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 19:49, Quel Qun wrote:
> Could we please use %buildroot instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, it
> would really look more consistent.
True, but does it REALLY matter? There's tradition at stake here, and
you're free to use whatever you want.
:-)
> Also, why are some macros left betwe
--- Original Message ---
From: Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Cooker] New release of the skeleton spec-file
>Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I just updated the skeleton-spec file and also made a new rpm
with it,
>>
Le Dimanche 19 Janvier 2003 20:56, Han Boetes a écrit :
> Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I just updated the skeleton-spec file and also made a new rpm with it,
> > just to make sure I didn't make any mistakes.
> >
> > If you have nice additions, suggestions or and improvements, please
>
Han Boetes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just updated the skeleton-spec file and also made a new rpm with it,
> just to make sure I didn't make any mistakes.
>
> If you have nice additions, suggestions or and improvements, please
> send me a diff.
Just to reply on myself: Geophrey Lee sent quit
Hi,
I just updated the skeleton-spec file and also made a new rpm with
it, just to make sure I didn't make any mistakes.
If you have nice additions, suggestions or and improvements, please
send me a diff.
# Han
--
http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/software
# rpm skeleton rewriten by Lenny Cartier <
18 matches
Mail list logo
