On 12/04/2009 03:57 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> - glibc32, glibc64 (dead packages?)
These packages are used in the build system so we don't have to install
.i686 glibc packages in the x86_64 buildroot, and other things of that
nature. They're not dead, but they very rarely need modification.
-
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 07:04:12AM -0200, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
>> - glibc32, glibc64 (dead packages?)
>yes
No. They are needed in the build system. They just havent been updated
since FC6 or so.
josh
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/m
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:57:47 +0100, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> handful of package still using %{PACKAGE_VERSION} and
> %{PACKAGE_RELEASE} macros.
...
> - libunwind
Fixed:
libunwind-0.99-0.13.20090430betagit4b8404d1.fc13
Jan
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
h
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Panu Matilainen
wrote:
>
> Grepping through spec files from CVS devel/ shows there are a handful of
> package still using %{PACKAGE_VERSION} and %{PACKAGE_RELEASE} macros. These
> were considered "backwards compatibility stuff" in 1998 (yes, eleven years
> ago) alre
Grepping through spec files from CVS devel/ shows there are a handful of
package still using %{PACKAGE_VERSION} and %{PACKAGE_RELEASE} macros.
These were considered "backwards compatibility stuff" in 1998 (yes, eleven
years ago) already, please change them to use the %{version} and
%{release}
