On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 17:49 -0500, Michael Jennings wrote: > On Friday, 25 February 2005, at 21:19:01 (+0100), > Richard Torkar wrote: > > > I'm well aware of that fact. It was not the intention to make the > > spec.in full-fledged to begin with. > > And therein lies the fundamental problem. :)
Don't quote something when you remove parts that belong to the quote Michael. It's impolite. The sentence you removed was: "If that is the purpose then I'd be more than happy to fix that." Kinda changes it somewhat, right? ;) > > > 3. Spec files and the rpm dependency engine are not equivalent to > > > autoFUCK tools and cannot be treated as such. > > > > Wholeheartedly agree. > > > > > 4. Making spec file changes, like making configure.in changes, can > > > have notable and widespread results and should thus be done as a > > > conscious choice. > > > > See point 3, since it's the same. > > No, not quite. #4 has nothing to do with package dependencies. #3 > was exclusively about package dependencies. Well, the end result is the same, chaos, and they both touch the same "umbrella" of problems which leads to that state. :) > > > 5. AutoFUCK tools generate files which differ between systems and > > > between builds. If you have to change your spec file whenever you > > > build, you have issues. > > > > See point 3, since it's the same. > > Incorrect again. This point is about the re-generation requirements > for various files and the level at which they drive the system. See above. > > What I wan't to do, and what I believe more people want, is to make > > spec creation a first class citizen in E's build system. > > It already is. I actively maintain every spec file in CVS and > regularly build snapshot packages as changes are made. Others help > out, including Azundris and Cobra (both on SuSE). I beg the difference. I created rpms two days ago and was bashed about not following the version numbers that rasterman has released. I was like -"Wtf, which version numbers? Shouldn't they be updated with autofoo magic??". That lead me to this discussion and the patches. So it's basically about what you put in the term "actively mainained" or me having bad luck checking out the sources when they weren't ready for rpm creation (it's dev code after all)... I'm leaving this thread now, since some people would like the system and some wouldn't. It's pointless to discuss it more since I feel that all parties have vented their opinions? Thus, caveat emptor ;-) No hard feelings, I don't agree with your reasons for not wanting such a solution, but I respect your opinions. Nevertheless, an interesting discussion, which we can point others to when the questions pops up again ;) Best, /Richard ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
