Jeff Johnson wrote:
I have multip[le issues with changes like this:
1) the patch uses envvar's
Using envvar's forces remote rpm to carry an environment along
in order to run remote commands, and largely forces remote
execution with
shell. There are many times/places that
And the feeping creaturism starts to try to accomodate automatic
detection for
a functionality that isn't needed or used by rpmbuild itself.
Feel free to revert... It was just that proyvind's original
implementation returned RPM_BUILD_NCPUS = undefined here. :-)
And what happens in a VM,
Two possibilities exist in order to face the problem in a correct way- in
rpm 4 e rpm 5 - , imho - i use it both:
1 - The two(or more) package go in conflicts in the files that compose them
:
pac1
--
Version : 1.0
Release: 1
Provides: pac = %{version} -%{release}
Obsolets : pac
On Apr 10, 2008, at 8:29 AM, devzero2000 wrote:
Also this reference could be useful, besides that something is
based on some rpm patch not upstream, imho:
http://en.opensuse.org/Upgrade_Dependencies
What do you think ?
Let me speak to the general issue(s) first. The issue of a self-
On Apr 10, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
På Torsdag 10 april 2008 , 13:39:57 skrev Anders F Björklund:
Jeff Johnson wrote:
I have multip[le issues with changes like this:
1) the patch uses envvar's
Using envvar's forces remote rpm to carry an environment along
På Torsdag 10 april 2008 , 13:39:57 skrev Anders F Björklund:
Jeff Johnson wrote:
I have multip[le issues with changes like this:
1) the patch uses envvar's
Using envvar's forces remote rpm to carry an environment along
in order to run remote commands, and largely forces remote
På Torsdag 10 april 2008 , 17:19:38 skrev Jeff Johnson:
On Apr 10, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
På Torsdag 10 april 2008 , 13:39:57 skrev Anders F Björklund:
Jeff Johnson wrote:
I have multip[le issues with changes like this:
1) the patch uses envvar's
Using envvar's
On Apr 10, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
På Torsdag 10 april 2008 , 17:19:38 skrev Jeff Johnson:
On Apr 10, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
På Torsdag 10 april 2008 , 13:39:57 skrev Anders F Björklund:
Jeff Johnson wrote:
I have multip[le issues with changes
On Thursday, 10 April 2008, at 09:49:16 (+0200),
Per ?yvind Karlsen wrote:
+%_initrddir%{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d
Can anyone explain to me why this macro is initrddir when
/etc/init.d and /etc/rc.d/init.d have absolutely nothing whatsoever to
do with the initial RAM disk?
On Apr 10, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Michael Jennings wrote:
On Thursday, 10 April 2008, at 09:49:16 (+0200),
Per ?yvind Karlsen wrote:
+%_initrddir %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d
Can anyone explain to me why this macro is initrddir when
/etc/init.d and /etc/rc.d/init.d have absolutely
På Torsdag 10 april 2008 , 17:55:05 skrev Jeff Johnson:
Not true. There are already Packaging Policy Police and you have
chosen a macro
name that falls within their claimed territority, and are going to
attempt to populate
that macro with values that are generally useful, rather than
On Apr 10, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
På Torsdag 10 april 2008 , 17:55:05 skrev Jeff Johnson:
Not true. There are already Packaging Policy Police and you have
chosen a macro
name that falls within their claimed territority, and are going to
attempt to populate
that macro with
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Michael Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, 10 April 2008, at 09:49:16 (+0200),
Per ?yvind Karlsen wrote:
+%_initrddir%{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d
Can anyone explain to me why this macro is initrddir when
/etc/init.d and
Jeff Johnson wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why this macro is initrddir when
/etc/init.d and /etc/rc.d/init.d have absolutely nothing
whatsoever to
do with the initial RAM disk? Shouldn't it be initdir?
Hysterical accident is what my bleached neurons remember.
Either Mandriva or PLD was
It was Mandriva, says the changelog:
http://rpm5.org/cvs/filediff?f=rpm/platform.inv1=2.6v2=2.7
Couldn't find their original changelog,
seems like it was reset at 2005 or so ?
Didn't look hard enough:
* Mon Aug 21 2000 Frederic Lepied [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.0.5-11mdk
- added _initrddir macro to
These two patches add support for building rpm5 under uclibc.
-N
diff -ur rpm-4.4.9_vanilla/rpmio/fts.c rpm-4.4.9_uclibc-ifdefs/rpmio/fts.c
--- rpm-4.4.9_vanilla/rpmio/fts.c 2007-01-21 15:18:00.0 +
+++ rpm-4.4.9_uclibc-ifdefs/rpmio/fts.c 2008-03-22 13:26:40.0 +
@@ -34,6
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008, Nigel Kukard wrote:
These two patches add support for building rpm5 under uclibc.
Except for the #include features.h it would be ok. But the
features.h is a GLIBC specific thing and hence cannot be included
unconditionally...
Ralf S.
These two patches add support for building rpm5 under uclibc.
Except for the #include features.h it would be ok. But the
features.h is a GLIBC specific thing and hence cannot be included
unconditionally...
Can we then ifdef it for glibc and uclibc? or just uclibc ... there are
some
18 matches
Mail list logo
