On 07/09/2011 07:00 PM, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> If I understand your script correctly then %dir tags will be created for all
> folders which are not owned by mingw{32,64}-filesystem.
yes
> This sounds okay to me, but we may end up in a situation where multiple
> packages can contain %dir tags for the same folder.
> I don't know if RPM can properly handle this situation at the moment and
> whether it is desired. There has been a similar
> discussion about the ownership of the /usr/share/gtk-doc folder recently
> among Fedora packagers. IIRC, the outcome was
> that all packages which contain gtk-doc documentation don't need to have a
> dependency on the gtk-doc package itself, but
> should co-own the /usr/share/gtk-doc folder.
they are ok until they are the same. so even if a file is owned by two
packages but they are sem they are ok.
> I would recommend you to put some more comments in the mingw-find-files.sh
> script which mention what exactly
> happens, which files are generated, which files are temporary and what's the
> purpose of the various files.
add some comment.
>> - move mingw32_debug_package and mingw64_debug_package to it's own macro
>> file and rewrite mingw_debug_package according to this (although i'd
>> like to retire the mingw_debug_package macro just keep it for compatibility)
>
> The split-out is good.
> Why would you like to retire this macro? What would it be replaced by?
because they are hardcoded to only these two target (mingw32/64), but if
we generate them by the mingwtool then they can be used without macro
modifications.
> You could replace 'mingw64-%{mingw_pkg_name}' with '%{mingw64_pkg_name}' here.
good catch.
--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"
_______________________________________________
mingw mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mingw
