On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 05:55:47AM +0059, Han Boetes wrote: > 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.
I don't think there really is any solution for this other than testing and people reporting problems. What happens when some optional compile time thing is in the source that adds files (e.g. an extra command that doesn't get built by default). The new files won't be in the list fromt he last time. > 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. I looked at it the other night when you were on IRC trying to get people to look at it. I made my comments then but I suspect you have me on ignore so you didn't see. > 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. According to the Mandrake rpm howto you should be doing that. But I can see the advantage in this circumstance. You include a package list that has the files and you start with that from the previous version. If there are missing files from the previous version then it should complain. If there are new files installed but unincluded in the RPM then the unpackaged files test will catch it ( I still think the unpackaged files is a stupid test). Somehow I really doubt this sort of problem happens often enough to make it worth the trouble to try and resolve it. The missing but installed files seems to be a far more common problem and I'm not sure the ugly hack of a solution we have is really worth it either. > Perhaps somebody knows an rpm that already uses that feature? cvsweb > is down atm. Any package that is installing nls files should be using it... per the mandrake rpm howto. > 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. I think it's definately an ugly hack. Incidentally are you ever going to fix the missing PreReq in fluxbox? fluxbox should have a prereq on chkfontpath. I pointed this out a while back when I published the 0.1.12 package with the remember patch in it. Which you didn't reply to. -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org "If you're not making any mistakes, you're flat out not trying hard enough." - Jim Nichols
