On Saturday, 29 October 2005, at 12:47:46 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> > If this file is normal and could theoretically appear regardless of
> > architecture, I should probably just put an rm -f in the spec file and
> > leave it at that.
> >
> > Do you agree?
>
> yeah - as it's harmless an
On 10/28/05, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If this file is normal and could theoretically appear regardless of
> architecture, I should probably just put an rm -f in the spec file and
> leave it at that.
>
> Do you agree?
>
I agree too. There' s somebody who rebuilds my src rpms fo
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:26:43 -0400 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Friday, 28 October 2005, at 10:07:25 (+0900),
> Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>
> > > buildtool: Error: Package "entrance" failed: The following files
> > > were not included in the built RPM: /.ecore/_system/
On Friday, 28 October 2005, at 10:07:25 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> > buildtool: Error: Package "entrance" failed: The following files were
> > not included in the built RPM: /.ecore/_system/.global.
> >
> > Any thoughts on what could cause this file to appear only on x86_64?
> > T
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:24:44 -0400 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> While the Entrance package builds and works quite spiffily on IA-32,
> it barfs on our x86_64 build server with the following error:
>
> Checking for unpackaged file
> (s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/mez
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 04:24:44PM -0400, Michael Jennings wrote:
> While the Entrance package builds and works quite spiffily on IA-32,
> it barfs on our x86_64 build server with the following error:
guess it's a bug in the rpm stuff ? the configure/make worked just fine ...
-mike
