On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:54:56 -0800, Adam wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 10:36 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> > You might like to install additional packages before actually running
> > the rpmbuild -bs, but rpm has no way of expressing this kind of
> > "SourceBuildRequires".
>
> By default, rpmb
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 12:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 10:36 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> > You might like to install additional packages before actually running
> > the rpmbuild -bs, but rpm has no way of expressing this kind of
> > "SourceBuildRequires".
>
> By defa
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 10:36 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> You might like to install additional packages before actually running
> the rpmbuild -bs, but rpm has no way of expressing this kind of
> "SourceBuildRequires".
By default, rpmbuild -bs fails if BuildRequires aren't present. This
suggests t
On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 22:27 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Normally automation and lack of duplication is regarded as a good
> thing.
>
> Package X and mingw32-X are related. The description of mingw32-X
> could be something like:
>
> "This package is the library X, cross-compiled for 32
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:24:08AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Paul Howarth wrote:
> > Wouldn't this problem be avoided if the SRPM was built in a buildroot
> > containing all of the buildreqs (like the binary RPMs are)?
> >
> > It would be an extra step in the build process, but not a big extra
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:14:22AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> By the way, the whole concept of this kind of macros has been frowned upon
> and FESCo already recommended that the MinGW packagers simply paste their
> debuginfo logic directly into the specfiles instead of using this kind of
> ma
Le Sam 6 février 2010 00:14, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> By the way, the whole concept of this kind of macros has been frowned upon
> and FESCo already recommended that the MinGW packagers simply paste their
> debuginfo logic directly into the specfiles instead of using this kind of
> macros. I gu
Paul Howarth wrote:
> Wouldn't this problem be avoided if the SRPM was built in a buildroot
> containing all of the buildreqs (like the binary RPMs are)?
>
> It would be an extra step in the build process, but not a big extra step.
>
> 1. Build SRPM in minimal buildroot to determine buildreqs (as
I wrote:
> I'll also note that I'm in FESCo and that I'll definitely vote for
> approving this FPC guideline, as I don't see why we should block it. Valid
> reasons have been given for why this is bad and Nicolas's counterarguments
> just boil down to laziness.
PS: This was already discussed in th
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Jeu 4 février 2010 10:26, Till Maas a écrit :
>> Why can't the following be used?
>> %{?_font_pkg:%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf}.conf AccanthisADFStd-*.otf}
>
> In theory in can. In practice that will increase the number of human
> mistakes since it is not a human-friendly s
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> This was Kevin Kofler's statement, rather than the FPC (or any FPC
> members). You're welcome to bring it up and we can discuss it. However, I
> think this is a case that does fall under what we want to fix by this
> Guideline. You are correct that FESCo also has to appro
On 05/02/10 15:56, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 10:13:52AM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:59:52AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
SRPM Buildtime macros https://fedoraproject.org/wi
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 10:13:52AM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:59:52AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > SRPM Buildtime macros
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SRPM_Buildtime_macros
> >
>
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Nicolas's argument is that rpm does not automatically detect when he wants
> to end his %description and therefore he should be excluded from the
> requirement.
Would it make sense to have %end available to terminate spec file
sections like
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:59:52AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > SRPM Buildtime macros https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SRPM_Buildtime_macros
>
> Did we consider fixing the bug in RPM/the packaging system instead of
> pushing
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> SRPM Buildtime macros https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SRPM_Buildtime_macros
Did we consider fixing the bug in RPM/the packaging system instead of
pushing more work on packagers?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:26:22PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> No, my argument is that the problem this tries to protect against is
> purely cosmetic, and is cosmetic in an area which has little practical
> importance. That makes it very low in my priority scale. Nevertheless I
> would support
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:26:22PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> No, my argument is that the problem this tries to protect against is
> purely cosmetic, and is cosmetic in an area which has little practical
> importance. That makes it very low in my priority scale. Nevertheless I
> would suppo
Le jeudi 04 février 2010 à 11:16 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:49:46AM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le Jeu 4 février 2010 10:26, Till Maas a écrit :
> > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:20:12AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > >> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > >
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:49:46AM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>
> Le Jeu 4 février 2010 10:26, Till Maas a écrit :
> > On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:20:12AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >> > That would probably avoid the koji display problem but is sure to
> >> > int
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 10:26:05AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:20:12AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > > That would probably avoid the koji display problem but is sure to
> > > introduce packaging bugs. The macro call has been put in this particula
Le Jeu 4 février 2010 10:26, Till Maas a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:20:12AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> > That would probably avoid the koji display problem but is sure to
>> > introduce packaging bugs. The macro call has been put in this particular
>> > plac
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 09:20:12AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > That would probably avoid the koji display problem but is sure to
> > introduce packaging bugs. The macro call has been put in this particular
> > place because experience shows that reduces human mistakes. I
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> That would probably avoid the koji display problem but is sure to
> introduce packaging bugs. The macro call has been put in this particular
> place because experience shows that reduces human mistakes. It's never
> easy to do back and forths between two parts of the same f
Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 18:33 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:48:52PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 23:46 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
> > > adf-accanthis-fonts is probably the most recent "complex" font package
> > > but I w
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:48:52PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 23:46 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
> > adf-accanthis-fonts is probably the most recent "complex" font package
> > but I wouldn't vouch the declaration happens exactly in the same order
> > in all fo
Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 23:46 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
> Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 17:14 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
> > On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:55:25PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > > Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 13:28 -0800, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> > > > On Wed, 2
Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 17:14 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:55:25PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 13:28 -0800, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> > > On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 22:19 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > > > A side-effect, is th
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> The committee started voting on new Guidelines for python modules that
> includes Guidelines for python3 but suffered network difficulties in the
> middle of the discussion. This will ocntinue on the packaging mailing list
> and
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 10:55:25PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 13:28 -0800, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 22:19 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > > A side-effect, is that spec parsers that read the file in a buildroot
> > > which is missing the
Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 13:28 -0800, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 22:19 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > A side-effect, is that spec parsers that read the file in a buildroot
> > which is missing the package providing the macro, will sometimes think
> > the macro call is p
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 22:19 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> A side-effect, is that spec parsers that read the file in a buildroot
> which is missing the package providing the macro, will sometimes think
> the macro call is part of the subpackage %summary. This is
> unfortunate,
> but I don't see ho
Le mercredi 03 février 2010 à 14:29 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
> We approved two guidelines:
>
> SRPM Buildtime macros https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SRPM_Buildtime_macros
> For: 5 hansg, SmootherFrOgZ, tibbs, abadger1999, rdieter
> Against: 0
While I don't really see the need for
out-of
Commitee members present
abadger1999
hansg
tibbs
racor
rdieter
SmootherFrOgZ
Committee members absent
rathann
limburgher (technical difficulties)
spot (parental duties)
We approved two guidelines:
SRPM Buildtime macros https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SRPM_Buildtime_macros
For: 5 hansg, Smooth
34 matches
Mail list logo
