Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> TA> Given that 5.4 enables embedded Perl and Perl modules by default,
> shouldn't
> TA> dist/net-snmp.spec be updated to reflect that?
>
> TA> Otherwise, I'm not sure a default rpmbuild will work too well.
>
> Prob
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> but the packager may have to tweak things later anyway...
That's exactly what I'd like to avoid if we can.
Can you please adjust the spec file and run a "make rpm" (and carefully inspect
what comes out of it) on Fedora *before* 5.4 final? It'd even make up a good
test before
> "DS" == Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> I'd be inclined to say no (if only marginally), and leave this to
DS> the packager. RFVs and voting are primarily important for stuff
DS> that affects the basic build - i.e. code, and the
DS> configure/makefile framework.
The thing that w
On 18/11/06, Wes Hardaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TA> @Wes: Do spec file changes require a rfv?
>
> fine line. I'd say yes, but the packager may have to tweak things
> later anyway...
I'd be inclined to say no (if only marginally), and leave this to the packager.
RFVs and voting are primaril
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> Given that 5.4 enables embedded Perl and Perl modules by default, shouldn't
TA> dist/net-snmp.spec be updated to reflect that?
TA> Otherwise, I'm not sure a default rpmbuild will work too well.
Probably, but I think it'll work either wa
Given that 5.4 enables embedded Perl and Perl modules by default, shouldn't
dist/net-snmp.spec be updated to reflect that?
Otherwise, I'm not sure a default rpmbuild will work too well.
@Wes: Do spec file changes require a rfv?
+Thomas
--
Thomas Anders (thomas.anders at blue-cable.de)
--
