On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:11:59 -0400 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Wednesday, 28 July 2004, at 02:20:32 (+0300),
> Oded Arbel wrote:
>
> > I think most reasonable persons would agree that learning to rebuild
> > SRPMs is easeir then learning to checkout from C
Can you send a DIRECT link the image? I can't find it..
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
one more big change to announce. We are now
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 01:23, Michael Jennings wrote:
> You're arguing that SRPM's are better because they 1 step instead of
> 3. That's splitting the hair mighty thin. Anyone who knows how to
> invoke rpmbuild --rebuild knows it because someone told them. Thus,
> that person is equally able to
On 28/07/04, at 09:29 +0100, Andrew Elcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Didier Casse wrote:
> >
> >>>and they do work!
> >>
> >>As do mine. The fact that I've built them all and imported the SRPM's
> >>into caos CVS (address in previous e-mail) tends to prove that fact
> >>rather well.
> >
> >
>
Didier Casse wrote:
and they do work!
As do mine. The fact that I've built them all and imported the SRPM's
into caos CVS (address in previous e-mail) tends to prove that fact
rather well.
Certain modules do not have specs. Where's elicit/engage specs for
instance?
enage has not been packaged fo
On Wednesday, 28 July 2004, at 02:20:32 (+0300),
Oded Arbel wrote:
> I think most reasonable persons would agree that learning to rebuild
> SRPMs is easeir then learning to checkout from CVS.
It was far easier for me to learn how to run "cvs login" and "cvs
checkout foo" than it was for me to fig
On Wednesday, 28 July 2004, at 10:18:37 (+0800),
Didier Casse wrote:
> Certain modules do not have specs. Where's elicit/engage specs for
> instance?
The apps don't all have them yet. I'm getting there.
> Btw use "License" instead of "Copyright" :-)
>
> Excerp from
> http://fedora.redhat.com/
On 27/07/04, at 11:45 -0400, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 July 2004, at 17:52:35 (+0800),
> Didier Casse wrote:
>
> > Interested in some nice and reliable spec files?
>
> You seem to be implying that the spec files in CVS are not nice and/or
> reliable. If you have
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 01:23, Michael Jennings wrote:
> You're arguing that SRPM's are better because they 1 step instead of
> 3. That's splitting the hair mighty thin. Anyone who knows how to
> invoke rpmbuild --rebuild knows it because someone told them. Thus,
> that person is equally able to
On Wednesday, 28 July 2004, at 00:51:08 (+0300),
Oded Arbel wrote:
> > rpmbuild -ba --define "_sourcedir $PWD" --define "_specdir $PWD" \
> > --define "_topdir $PWD" --define "%_srcrpmdir $PWD" \
> > --define "_rpmdir $PWD"
>
> That's mighty useful, I didn't know about that. I still think
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 18:43, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 July 2004, at 03:26:34 (+0300),
> Oded Arbel wrote:
>
> > I really appriciate the effort of supplying valid spec files in the
> > CVS - its make life so much easier for distributions and other
> > packagers. I wish that more pro
On Tuesday, 27 July 2004, at 17:52:35 (+0800),
Didier Casse wrote:
> Interested in some nice and reliable spec files?
You seem to be implying that the spec files in CVS are not nice and/or
reliable. If you have problems with them, let me know rather than
pointing people in the wrong direction.
On Tuesday, 27 July 2004, at 03:26:34 (+0300),
Oded Arbel wrote:
> I really appriciate the effort of supplying valid spec files in the
> CVS - its make life so much easier for distributions and other
> packagers. I wish that more projects will follow.
I'm not so sure I agree. Many software devel
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:58:21 +0900, Carsten Haitzler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:04:58 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
babbled:
Hello all,
I downloaded yesterday most EFL libraries and some applications from
CVS.
The libraries compiled fine, but when I tried to compile Entice
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:37:01 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Charnas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure what's wrong, but if you have gentoo you can emerge the
tarballs from portage and that will work. It's not a bugfix, but I assume
you're not a developper (I'm probably wrong since you've tracked the
On 27/07/04, at 03:26 +0300, Oded Arbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...]
> I'm trying to build RPMs from CVS for my system (Mandrake 10). actually -
> I'm writing a script that will allow to build E17 CVS and install it as RPMs
> directly. the resulting RPMs will of course be useless for anyone n
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:04:58 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
> Hello all,
>
> I downloaded yesterday most EFL libraries and some applications from CVS.
> The libraries compiled fine, but when I tried to compile Entice and
> Entrance I got the following error:
fixed.
On Tuesday 27 July 2004 02:38, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Monday, 26 July 2004, at 23:26:25 (+0200),
>
> Andreas Volz wrote:
> > And if the the questioner has a RPM based distribution you could
> > perhaps use gentoo's feature to create RPM's with ebuild. I wonder
> > why nobody yet uses this fea
On Monday, 26 July 2004, at 23:26:25 (+0200),
Andreas Volz wrote:
> And if the the questioner has a RPM based distribution you could
> perhaps use gentoo's feature to create RPM's with ebuild. I wonder
> why nobody yet uses this feature from gentoo to create (unofficial)
> RPM packages from E17 CV
Am Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:37:01 -0700 (PDT) schrieb Jonathan Charnas:
> I'm not sure what's wrong, but if you have gentoo you can emerge the
> tarballs from portage and that will work. It's not a bugfix, but I
> assume you're not a developper (I'm probably wrong since you've
> tracked the errors in t
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I downloaded yesterday most EFL libraries and some applications from
> CVS.
> The libraries compiled fine, but when I tried to compile Entice and
> Entrance I got the following error:
>
> ...
> edje_cc: Wrote 1743 bytes ( 2Kb) for "images/4
21 matches
Mail list logo
