2011/8/10 Jani Välimaa <[email protected]>: > 2011/8/10 Thomas Spuhler <[email protected]>: >> Thanks for fixing the spec file and submit the package. >> I have a comment and a few questions. First the comment. >> an experienced packager telling someone like me (and others not so >> experienced >> packagers) why the package build failed that built just a few month ago >> would >> have helped learning how to fix things. Now the package is built and I still >> don't know what the error message meant. > > The build failed because now there are some checks which prevents > uploading "erroneus" packages. Check for empty %post and %preun is one > of those added checks. There's no such macro as %update_scrollkeeper > (or %clean_scrollkeeper) so that's why your build failed. See 'rpm > --eval %update_scrollkeeper' > >> >> why can the scrollkeepr script be removed as not required when it was >> required >> not so long ago and other distributions use it too. It supposed to be there >> if >> you have omf files, and yes lilypond-doc has such files >> > > It was me who removed the scrollkeeper reqs as I only looked at %files > section and noticed there was no %{_datadir}/omf/ entry. The > filetriggers looks >
Oopsie, somehow managed to push the send button.. Anyways, the filetriggers only looks .omf files from /usr/share/omf/ and now after checking I see in lilypond they're hiding in somewhere else and out of filetriggers reach. I think the fix would be moving them to a correct place to be "available" for filetriggers (and add back reqs I removed). >> Can you please explain this in more details? I would appreciate it. >> > > Sure >
