On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:50:34 -0200 > Lucas De Marchi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Enlightenment SVN >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Log: >> > rpm spec for new edbus >> > >> > >> > Author: rui >> > Date: 2012-11-18 03:22:16 -0800 (Sun, 18 Nov 2012) >> > New Revision: 79417 >> > Trac: http://trac.enlightenment.org/e/changeset/79417 >> > >> > Added: >> > trunk/edbus/edbus.spec.in >> > Modified: >> > trunk/edbus/Makefile.am trunk/edbus/configure.ac >> > >> > Modified: trunk/edbus/Makefile.am >> > =================================================================== >> > --- trunk/edbus/Makefile.am 2012-11-18 10:01:47 UTC (rev 79416) >> > +++ trunk/edbus/Makefile.am 2012-11-18 11:22:16 UTC (rev 79417) >> > @@ -1,7 +1,8 @@ >> > ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I m4 >> > CLEANFILES = >> > MAINTAINERCLEANFILES = >> > -EXTRA_DIST = >> > +EXTRA_DIST = \ >> > + edbus.spec >> > >> > SUBDIRS = doc >> > >> > >> > Modified: trunk/edbus/configure.ac >> > =================================================================== >> > --- trunk/edbus/configure.ac 2012-11-18 10:01:47 UTC (rev 79416) >> > +++ trunk/edbus/configure.ac 2012-11-18 11:22:16 UTC (rev 79417) >> > @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ >> > >> > AC_CONFIG_FILES([ >> > Makefile >> > +edbus.spec >> >> >> I still think this should not be in upstream projects, but carried by >> distros. Why do we need this? > > cd e > svn update > cd trunk/e > ./autogen.sh > make dist > rpmbuild -ta package-version.tar.gz (from make dist) > rpm -Uvh rpmbuild/RPMS/{arch}/package-*version*rpm > > Now tell me which distros would include a weekly (or so) updated > EFL+e17? > >> IMO it's better maintained by people that care >> about it > > I care about it, as probably do care other who build svn into rpms, and > it doesn't hurt you. Following your advice would maybe make you happy, > but hurt me. > > Is a neutral-win situation so undesirable you'd rather win an argument > and make me loose more integration?
yep, that's why I just sent an email instead of reverting the patch. Even if I don't like it. Also this is in edbus, not E. > >> , i.e. package maintainers. > > Since I don't have enough time to contribute with C code, at least I > can contribute with a generic rpm spec that a released package can > carry. Arch and gentoo have their own way to build *packages* from svn/git, without requiring you to change the build script. Doesn't RPM have such a thing? What really bothers me is distributing a .spec. This demonstrates intent to support rpm, but not the others. And if it's not an intent, people start submitting patches to have their PKGBUILD, ebuild, whatever-build-their-distros to upstream projects. Also this rpm works in your distro, but not in another-random-distro-using-rpm. So *distributing* the spec may not hurt me, but it will for other people. So, since you are building from unreleased svn/git, would it hurt you to at least not distribute the .spec? Lucas De Marchi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
