Dne 21.7.2017 v 00:24 David Sommerseth napsal(a):
> On 20/07/17 12:47, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:27:54 -0400 (EDT), John Ellson wrote:
>>> This works well for me, upstream, for building and testing across all
>>> distributions, but perhaps the .spec file is less optimal w
On 20/07/17 12:47, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:27:54 -0400 (EDT), John Ellson wrote:
>>
>> This works well for me, upstream, for building and testing across all
>> distributions, but perhaps the .spec file is less optimal when you
>> separately maintain versions for each dist
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:36:10 -0400 (EDT), John Ellson wrote:
> Specific examples please?
Non-versioned Obsoletes as one example. Arch-independent explicit Requires
as another example.
When is the last time you've run the fedora-review tool on this src.rpm?
___
I've limited the upstream .spec to el >= 6 and fc >= 23, and then removed a lot
of conditionals that are no longer needed (with some loss of generality).
Latest upstream spec (pre-configure source) is at:
https://github.com/ellson/graphviz/blob/master/graphviz.spec.in
and the resulting source rp
> Doubtful. It's a maintenance nightmare
OK, but I'm raising this issue to try to get some help on getting a little
closer.
> Tons of defines and conditionals, which toggle almost everything (BR,
> features and subpkgs)
Yes,as a means of stating which feature can be built for which distro. This
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:27:54 -0400 (EDT), John Ellson wrote:
> Jaroslav Škarvada requested that i move the discussion from:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410366
>
> about unifying the graphviz .spec file with upstream, to this list.
>
>
> Perhaps the unification object
Jaroslav Škarvada mailto:jskar...@redhat.com requested that i move the
discussion from:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410366
about unifying the graphviz .spec file with upstream, to this list.
Perhaps the unification objective is not attainable because of different
requir
