https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1095967
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #39 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Then, in addition to installing libspectrwm.so.0.0.0, you'll want to create
symlinks to libspectrwm.so.0 and libspectrwm.so. The unversioned .so file
should go in a -devel
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
spectrwm-2.2.0-9.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
spectrwm-2.2.0-9.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #33 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
spectrwm-2.2.0-9.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spectrwm-2.2.0-9.fc18
--
You are receiving this
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
spectrwm-2.2.0-9.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spectrwm-2.2.0-9.fc19
--
You are receiving this
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
spectrwm-2.2.0-9.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #32 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
-- I'm including these to try out fedora-review --
Spec url: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/spectrwm.spec
SRPM url:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #29 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Email address l...@buffalo.edu is not a valid bugzilla email address.
Either make a bugzilla account with that email address or change your email
address in the Fedora
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |
--
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #30 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@fedoraproject.org ---
Jon, I changed my bugzilla email to l...@fedoraproject.org . When I go to my
preferences, I don't see the option to change it back to my @buffalo.edu
address. It
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #18 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
Spot,
I had another concern: spectrwm's default configuration uses xterm as terminal
emulator, xlockmore for screen locking and dmenu for application launching.
These
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #19 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
They should be Requires, not BuildRequires, and they're fine as Requires. A
robust installation makes more sense here as the default.
As to the %files entry, if you
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #20 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
Cool. Thanks for addressing this.
Please see the updated SPEC file:
https://github.com/lsm5/rpmbuild/blob/master/SPECS/spectrwm.spec
--
You are receiving this mail
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #21 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
Not sure why I didn't notice this before, but why are you conditionalizing like
this:
%ifarch x86_64
make -C linux/ %{?_smp_mflags} PREFIX=/usr LIBDIR=%{_libdir}
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #22 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
Ohh yes, this has now been fixed. That was the first thing that worked for me
when I was having trouble with lib64, so I left it at that.
The spec URL is the same as in
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #23 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
Last things (I promise), you don't need to run ldconfig on %post/%postun for
devel, only for the main package.
You also don't need the empty %doc.
Everything else
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #25 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
%doc is not a section, it is a per file flag.
You don't need to flag manpages as %doc, because RPM already assumes anything
under /usr/share/man is %doc. So in your
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #24 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
By not needing empty %doc, do you mean, I include the 1st doc file on the same
line as %doc? Which is what I have done. %post and %postun for devel removed.
Spec URL same
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #26 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
ohh ya, sorry, I see you mentioned it in your very 1st comment, and I guess I
read it wrong. Anyway, spec updated:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #12 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
You can, if you wish, define a %global macro (or macros) for the sharedlib
versioning where you make the symlinks, or, if you're feeling brave, you can
patch up the
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #13 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
I'll make that change by tonight and update this. Is there anything else I need
to consider?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #14 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
Created attachment 736096
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=736096action=edit
installs a config file to /etc and removes scrotwm symlink
--
You are
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #15 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
Created attachment 736097
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=736097action=edit
-Wl,-soname for libswmhack.so.0
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #16 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
Created attachment 736098
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=736098action=edit
shlib symlinks handled in Makefile
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #17 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
Alright,
new spec file: https://github.com/lsm5/rpmbuild/blob/master/SPECS/spectrwm.spec
koji url: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5256488
rpmlint
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #11 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
Spot,
Thanks. Please checkout changes. The spec and patch URL are the same as in
Comment 8.
New SRPM URL:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #8 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
Spot,
I overlooked quite a few things in the previous version. Should be fixed now.
Please take a look:
Spec URL:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #9 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
Correction: New SRPM URL:
https://github.com/lsm5/rpmbuild/blob/master/SRPMS/spectrwm-2.2.0-3.fc20.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #10 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
That patch isn't correct. You want the line to look like this:
$(CC) -Wl,-soname,libswmhack.so.0 -shared -fpic -o libswmhack.so.$(LVERS)
swm_hack.so $(LDADD)
You
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #6 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
Spot,
Following should hopefully address most of your comments:
Spec URL: https://github.com/lsm5/rpmbuild/blob/master/SPECS/spectrwm.spec
SRPM URL:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #7 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
Whoops ... I guess I made a few errors with the lib files ...will get back to
this ... please ignore previous comment
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #3 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
UPDATES:
Patches reduced. LIBDIR and PREFIX are now handled in spec file itself instead
of patches .
Spec URL:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #4 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
UPDATES:
Patches reduced. LIBDIR and PREFIX are now handled in spec file itself instead
of patches .
Spec URL:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
--- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu ---
First off, thanks for reviewing.
Patches now supported with comments and links to bug reports
ExclusiveArch and Provides gotten rid of
All files in %files explicitly
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
Lokesh Mandvekar l...@buffalo.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946856
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
47 matches
Mail list logo
