On 11/02/17 01:10 +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
For now, we have this :
-Dinc_version_list=5.12.5.12.2/%{full_arch} 2 5.12.1
5.12.1/%{full_arch} 5.12.0 5.12.0/%{full_arch} 5.10.1 5.10.0 5.8.8 5.8.7
5.8.6 5.8.5 5.8.4 5.8.3 5.8.2 5.8.1 5.8.0 5.6.1 5.6.0
and of course the first one is
On 11/02/16 18:28 +0100, Jerome Quelin wrote:
just fyi - perl 5.12.3 is under way. upgrade should be smooth (famous
last words).
ok, after the mess i caused yesterday, everything is back to normal.
perl 5.12.3 is now built and works fine.
the usual suspects (vim, apache-mod_perl) needing a
On 11/02/16 18:28 +0100, Jerome Quelin wrote:
just fyi - perl 5.12.3 is under way. upgrade should be smooth (famous
last words).
ok, i borked it. i forgot to add a path in @INC (5.12.2/%{fullarch}),
which means build-system is currently unable to install buildrequires -
and thus rebuild
Le mercredi 16 février 2011 à 18:50 +0100, Jerome Quelin a écrit :
On 11/02/16 18:28 +0100, Jerome Quelin wrote:
just fyi - perl 5.12.3 is under way. upgrade should be smooth (famous
last words).
ok, i borked it. i forgot to add a path in @INC (5.12.2/%{fullarch}),
which means
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Thierry Vignaud
thierry.vign...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 February 2011 18:50, Jerome Quelin jque...@gmail.com wrote:
just fyi - perl 5.12.3 is under way. upgrade should be smooth (famous
last words).
ok, i borked it. i forgot to add a path in @INC
Do you have ideas for this pb to not happen anymore ?
a BIG FAT warning at top of spec.
--
Thomas
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 22:38, Thomas Backlund t...@iki.fi wrote:
Do you have ideas for this pb to not happen anymore ?
a BIG FAT warning at top of spec.
Or a specific check at upload (in rpmlint ?)
On 16 February 2011 22:59, Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
Do you have ideas for this pb to not happen anymore ?
For this very specific case :
do not rely on human to set @INC when we can do it automatically with a
script
You mean at runtime?
B/c I failed to see how we could
Thierry Vignaud skrev 17.2.2011 00:54:
On 16 February 2011 22:59, Michael Schererm...@zarb.org wrote:
Do you have ideas for this pb to not happen anymore ?
For this very specific case :
do not rely on human to set @INC when we can do it automatically with a
script
You mean at runtime?
B/c
On 16 February 2011 23:57, Thomas Backlund t...@iki.fi wrote:
Do you have ideas for this pb to not happen anymore ?
For this very specific case :
do not rely on human to set @INC when we can do it automatically with a
script
You mean at runtime?
B/c I failed to see how we could
Le mercredi 16 février 2011 à 23:54 +0100, Thierry Vignaud a écrit :
On 16 February 2011 22:59, Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
Do you have ideas for this pb to not happen anymore ?
For this very specific case :
do not rely on human to set @INC when we can do it automatically with a
11 matches
Mail list logo
