To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=52532
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 29 04:03:21 -0700
2005 -------
> Since CWS sysui09 _all_ spec files have an %install section.
Ah - my fault. But the problem /does/ occur with all the packages now. But the
confusion was not worthless: The redhat-rpm contains an error in the
install-section:
ln -sf $iconname-sfpreadsheet.png [...]
^
ln -sf $iconname-sfpreadsheet-template.png [...]
^
> [duplication ...]
OK, I'm convinced.
> doesn't the symlink approach also place symbolic links into different packages
> than the shared libraries they refer to ?
Yes. e.g. link "libabp680li.so" from core04u points to file libabp680li.so.1
from core04 - But an update/patch rpm would contain both the link + a new
revision.
> Why doesn't the build break there ?
On the one hand epm doesn't use %install (or does it?) -> no %__os_install_post
-> no brp-symlink and on the other hand the target is present in the
"build-root" (solver) -> even if the script is run it is happy.
@maxweber: don't forget to regenerate configure from the patched configure.in
and to upload it as well - you may want to hook up to cws configure11 and let
rene take care of all the details :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
