Em 08-04-2010 01:57, Michael Jennings escreveu: > On Wednesday, 07 April 2010, at 12:27:47 (+0100), > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > >>>> I'm sorry, but that breaks the whole point of having clean software >>>> installs. >>> >>> How, exactly? > > I notice that you did not answer this question. Did you miss it, or > did you intentionally ignore it?
rpm -Fvh newerfile.rpm or even yum upgrade Also, if for some reason a file is installed at the wrong location, force will make it overwrite files without checks. >> You're already confusing things, please devote some time to think >> about the issue because I'm not discussing against the current >> method, I like it. >> >> I'm just pointing out the need to detail it further than per day so >> it suits even better. > > I, too, have encountered this in the past. But the day-level notation > is a good compromise between readability/usefulness and rebuild > granularity. I told you what I do, but you don't seem willing to use > that method for reasons you have yet to articulate. (Calling it "not > sane" is a subjective, not logical, argument.) Subjective is "compromise between readibility/usefullness", upgrade sanity isn't subjective. Doing it with yum even allows me to rollback the packages with "yum history undo ID" > I would like to point out that the code you primarily work on, > elmdentica, is yours to do with as you like. If you want the spec > file to have a timestamp with HHMM in it, that's your call. Please > feel free. But you said you wanted to change *all* the spec files, > and that's what I oppose. I'd have no doubt about that but my issue is tracking down a weird bug with anchorblocks which sometimes don't even call the clicked handler, sometimes cause a crash (apparently in evas), sometimes the ones which crash work if run under valgrind, etc... What gdb and valgrind tell me it's a problem in evas or at a lower level. Anyway, long after I went to bed I saw some talk about a --configure-with-ts=.... I could take that, but I think that I have a better idea, please tell me what you think of it. rpm building used to allow defining a variable with a default value in case it was defined. If it's still the case nowadays, the default could be YYYYMMDD but I could define it's value with rpmbuild --define var=YYYYMMDDhhmm to override it. What do you think? Rui ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
