On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 20:53, Kim Woelders wrote:
> > 1) Are the release numbers (after the version numbers) in the
> > *tarballs* going to stay or are they just there for the pre-releases?
> > If they are staying then the Source URLs in the spec files need
> > correcting further to include them.
>
Stuart Children wrote:
OK, attached is an updated patch incorporating all comments.
Thanks, I'll commit it asap.
Two questions (the patch can go in regardless):
1) Are the release numbers (after the version numbers) in the
*tarballs* going to stay or are they just there for the pre-releases?
If t
OK, attached is an updated patch incorporating all comments. Two
questions (the patch can go in regardless):
1) Are the release numbers (after the version numbers) in the *tarballs*
going to stay or are they just there for the pre-releases? If they are
staying then the Source URLs in the spec file
Hey
On Sat, 2004-05-08 at 14:17, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Saturday, 08 May 2004, at 10:19:24 (+0200),
> Kim Woelders wrote:
>
> > I'm not very experienced with rpm packaging. I was hoping Michael
> > would have an opinion on this.
>
> Sorry, I've been super busy. I've only been able to skim
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:49:11AM +0100, Stuart Children wrote:
>
> Definitely agreed. The spec file in CVS, and so in RPMs offered for
> download, should be as distro agnostic as possible. Where there are
> differences it should default to anything specified in the LSB, or
> otherwise to the
On Saturday, 08 May 2004, at 10:19:24 (+0200),
Kim Woelders wrote:
> I'm not very experienced with rpm packaging. I was hoping Michael
> would have an opinion on this.
Sorry, I've been super busy. I've only been able to skim e-mails, and
I seem to have missed this one. :(
> OK, It seems that "V
I'm not very experienced with rpm packaging. I was hoping Michael would
have an opinion on this.
Stuart Children wrote:
a) Is there a reason name, version, and release were being set with
%define rather than just setting the tags themselves? The cvs log
doesn't offer any clues that I could spot.
Hi
Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:38:34PM -0400, Michael Jennings wrote:
Not trying to be pedantic here, but for the sake of clarity, RPM's are
not distro-specific, exactly. The RPM's as I do them are as
distro-agnostic as they can be, in fact. But they do require certain
ve
An earlier (different) email seems to have got stuck in the moderation
queue for some reason - I hope this one doesn't.
Stuart Children wrote:
I do have some improvements to the current spec file which are generic -
I'll post a patch against CVS later today.
Unified diff attached. Some explanati
Hi Kim
Kim Woelders wrote:
Stuart Children wrote:
Is anyone looking at getting involved with Fedora package submission?
[snip]
I'm pretty sure nobody else is doing this, so by all means go ahead.
Oklydok.
What are the Fedora specific issues in the spec files?
Currently there are none I'm aware o
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:38:34PM -0400, Michael Jennings wrote:
>
> Not trying to be pedantic here, but for the sake of clarity, RPM's are
> not distro-specific, exactly. The RPM's as I do them are as
> distro-agnostic as they can be, in fact. But they do require certain
> versions of certain
Ben Rockwood wrote:
BTW, this remeinds me, it would still kick ass to have an E KNOPPIX
CD. If
someone wants to take that on, it'd be awsome!
I'm working on a Knoppix CD customized for my CS department*. When I
get some time over the summer, I'll cut an E specific CD. Any requests
other th
On Tuesday, 04 May 2004, at 03:19:03 (-0700),
Ben Rockwood wrote:
> Okey, noted. I've not used an RPM based system in ages, so RPMs
> look like RPMs to me. I'll note in the future that they are distro
> specific.
Not trying to be pedantic here, but for the sake of clarity, RPM's are
not distro-
Stuart Children wrote:
Is anyone looking at getting involved with Fedora package submission?
I've been meaning to volunteer for this for ages (I'm already building
my own packages of DR16.6). This is not just fixing up the spec
files/patches for anything Fedora specific and building the things, but
Kim Woelders wrote:
Ben Rockwood wrote:
kwo is cutting Linux RPMs.
Well, I have supplied only the RH9 RPM's. Michael did the others.
Linux RPM's (x86) are not just that. At least for DR16.6 with imlib1 I
got the impression that E had to be compiled/packaged differently for
just about every dist
Ben Rockwood wrote:
kwo is cutting Linux RPMs.
Well, I have supplied only the RH9 RPM's. Michael did the others.
Linux RPM's (x86) are not just that. At least for DR16.6 with imlib1 I
got the impression that E had to be compiled/packaged differently for
just about every distribution.
Anyway, I'd
Hiyas
Long time user and lurker (here and on IRC as StuartC).
On Sat, 2004-05-01 at 23:16, Ben Rockwood wrote:
> I'm planning on providing Solaris builds in PKG format. DR16.7 is fine
> under GCC right now, but I'm working out some problems under Forte for
> an optomized build.
I should be ab
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 03:16:05PM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote:
>
> OSX is a possible platform, but there isn't too much point since it's
> nested, so I suppose it'd only be nifty for PR/novelty value.
Rather pointless unless we find someone running running it with X only
and not the Mac OS X GUI.
Since DR16.7 is in pre, it's time to talk ports.
I'm planning on providing Solaris builds in PKG format. DR16.7 is fine
under GCC right now, but I'm working out some problems under Forte for
an optomized build.
Looks like both Nick and Guillaume have SGI. I just aquired an Indigo2
for porti
19 matches
Mail list logo
