On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:05:42 +0100 Richard Torkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Bbabbled:
(B
(B> On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 11:50 -0500, Michael Jennings wrote:
(B> > On Friday, 25 February 2005, at 17:42:51 (+0100),
(B> > Richard Torkar wrote:
(B> >
(B> > > Do you have a link to that conversation?
(B> >
(B> > Look in that same thread you referred to.
(B>
(B> Well I did but I don't see a reason.
(B> You wrote:
(B> "We did that before, and it was a huge hassle."
(B>
(B> A "hassle" canbe seen as a reason, but I'd love to hear more background.
(B> What was the hassle? What did go wrong? I've seen spec creation being
(B> used in large projects without a problem during several years, so I'm
(B> just curious as to why this was a problem in this project. As always,
(B> I'm asking nicely. I'm not being arrogant - just curious and maybe
(B> stupid :-)
(B
(Bthe problem is autofoo generates the .spec from the .spec.in - BUT you want to
(Bship a .spec in the tarball so u can do rpm -ta file.tar.gz - BUT you shouldn't
(Bship pre-generated files in src tarballs... so at the time we opted for "do it
(Bby hand". thus the hassle.
(B
(Bat the time though we only have 3 or 4 things to package. now we have 20 or
(Bmore... it may be time to fix the auto-generation of package info once and for
(Ball... but imho we need to fix it not just for .spec if we do...
(B
(B--
(B------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
(BThe Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$BMg9%B?(B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(BTokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)
(B
(B
(B-------------------------------------------------------
(BSF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
(BRead honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
(BDiscover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
(Bhttp://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
(B_______________________________________________
(Benlightenment-devel mailing list
([email protected]
(Bhttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
