Marco Lamberto wrote:
> Please check the patch and _please_ merge those changes in order to build again
> easily and RPMmed GIMP. ;)
I've taken a look at the patch, Marco. For some reason all your patches
were rejected when I tried to apply them so I recreated the patches.
However, I am only using four of the six patches you provided.
--- gimp-1.2.0lm/plug-ins/perl/Makefile.PL.orig Fri Dec 29 14:03:30 2000
+++ gimp-1.2.0lm/plug-ins/perl/Makefile.PL Fri Dec 29 14:03:32 2000
I'm not sure why you commented out one of the lines in this file so I have
left it out for now.
--- gimp-1.2.0lm/plug-ins/Makefile.in.orig Fri Dec 29 11:27:02 2000
+++ gimp-1.2.0lm/plug-ins/Makefile.in Fri Dec 29 14:12:30 2000
I also did not use this patch. As far as I can tell this file does not need
a DESTDIR patch. It is determining which argument to pass to the make in
the sub-directories based on how this level make was invoked.
Last night I compared the contents of the .rpm files created using my
updated .spec file against the files installed in to the directory tree
used for the CVS based version of GIMP. I feel I am picking up everything
that my development version was installing so I am making a patch for the
ChangeLog file. I will then do one more build to verify everything is ok
and release the patches.
After this, I will create a spec file for gimp-data-extras. I will also
compare the source tree for the GIMP 1.2.0 which I downloaded as a tar ball
and compare it against the CVS version I downloaded fresh last night. I
know there are some patches that were made to the original 1.2.0 so I will
try and incorporate them in to the .src.rpm if there is not already an
updated file with the latest patches at gimp.org already available.
Internet:kcozens at interlog.com |"What are we going to do today, Borg?"
or:ve3syb at rac.ca |"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus:
Packet:ve3syb@va3bbs.#scon.on.ca.na| Try to assimilate the world!"
#include <disclaimer/favourite> | -Pinkutus & the Borg