https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
Susi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|505154 (FE-SCITECH) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
David Parsons changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
David Parsons changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(david.parsons@inr |
|ia.fr)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||or...@nwra.com
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #20 from David Parsons david.pars...@inria.fr ---
Hi,
I've submitted a patch to upstream that fixes the build issue. I was even lucky
enough to come across the team leader yesterday, they will talk about it at
their next meeting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #19 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
(In reply to David Parsons from comment #18)
(In reply to Pierre-YvesChibon from comment #16)
(In reply to David Parsons from comment #10)
As for point 3. I had read this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #2 from David Parsons david.pars...@inria.fr ---
Thank you Pierre-Yves
I have applied your suggestions except for the last once since I indeed intend
to package for EPEL as well.
Here's the new SPEC and SRPM files :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #3 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr ---
Incrementing the release number was good, replacing the entry for 2.2.1-1 in
the changelog not :)
The changelog contains a description of the changes that occurred to the spec
file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #4 from David Parsons david.pars...@inria.fr ---
Yes, I should have seen that. Well, here come v3 then...
http://parsons.eu/tmp/kissplice.spec
http://parsons.eu/tmp/kissplice-2.2.1-3.fc20.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||505154 (FE-SCITECH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #6 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5)
2. Drop rm -rf %{buildroot}
Maybe you could pay attention to the discussion occurring on a ticket before
commenting?
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
(In reply to Pierre-YvesChibon from comment #6)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5)
2. Drop rm -rf %{buildroot}
Maybe you could pay attention to the discussion occurring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #8 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #7)
(In reply to Pierre-YvesChibon from comment #6)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5)
2. Drop rm -rf %{buildroot}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #9 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr ---
@David you probably want to check that link as well, and if you are planning on
packaging this application for epel5, you probably want to look at the next
section ;-)
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #10 from David Parsons david.pars...@inria.fr ---
Hi Christopher and thank you for adding your comments.
I had seen that point 1. (BR gcc-c++) wasn't needed but I thought it was
harmless so I had left it in. I will remove it.
For
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
Hi David,
Ralf's comments are right, IMO less legacy RPM stuffs in SPEC will make it
cleaner. Also one more important, if you don't use EPEL, don't maintain
packages on that branch.
I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #13 from David Parsons david.pars...@inria.fr ---
OK I will remove rm -rf %{buildroot} from %install and add it back into the
EPEL5 package when needed.
As for the %{_prefix}/lib vs %{_libdir} (or %{_libexecdir}), I'm a former
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #14 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #11)
(In reply to David Parsons from comment #10)
However, if EPEL5 is still being used, I suppose it would be best to
support it and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #15 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr ---
Finally, you need a sponsor first, *sigh... Hope you can get sponsored soon.
Unless I'm mistaking, I already see two sponsors on that review :)
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #16 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr ---
(In reply to David Parsons from comment #10)
As for point 3. I had read this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Libexecdir (files in lib
are indeed executable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #17 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Pierre-YvesChibon from comment #14)
I only partly agree with this, I prefer to review the most complete spec
file even if things are later cleaned in git.
I've seen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
--- Comment #18 from David Parsons david.pars...@inria.fr ---
(In reply to Pierre-YvesChibon from comment #16)
(In reply to David Parsons from comment #10)
As for point 3. I had read this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134835
David Parsons david.pars...@inria.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841
25 matches
Mail list logo
