Ben Reser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Han Boetes wrote: > > > Questions I am asking myself right now: > > > > - Why this script and not the %files section of the rpm? > > Isn't all this already solved by the unpackaged files test?
Not entirely. > With the unpackaged files test if you miss a file the build will fail. > If you have a file that is extra the build will fail anyway. Thus this > probably has already been solved for you. Nope. By some chance `nls' wasn't enable in the default fb-0.1.13. Someone on the developers list came with a patch which I applies in -2mdk. But I never noticed that 20 files were missing. The only alternative I knew of was maintaining a full pack-list in the spec. Which I tried in -3mdk. Please have a look. It sure does look ugly but it also keeps me from not noticing missing files that _I_ don't use. Vincent in private pointed me to the -f option for the %files section ie a sepparate file which contains a list of files that have to be packed. I will experiment with that feature in the next release. Perhaps somebody knows an rpm that already uses that feature? cvsweb is down atm. > So I'm not sure what the point is for this package list script? I hope you see now it has points. I just don't think it is the best solution anymore. But I do have a tendency to experiment. //Han -- http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/software
