Hans de Goede wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 17:09 +0200, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
Hallo.
%build
Packagers are encouraged to call autoreconf whenever possible. It
guarantees correct build of packages on platforms, that was not
supported by autotools in the
Mark Hatle wrote:
Stanislav Brabec wrote:
The standard %setup macro should unpack these packages in convenient
way:
%prep
%setup -q
Configuration and compilation
%build
Packagers are encouraged to call autoreconf whenever possible. It
guarantees correct build of
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
1. We are not in different positions. You might not be aware about it,
but Hans, Bill and I all package many packages in Fedora, comprising
more than i386 and x86_64.
2. If what you claim was true, either the packages you are dealing with
are of low quality or there
Marc Haisenko wrote:
What about passing autoconf cache variables ? I regularly need to do things
like:
ac_cv_foo=yes \
ac_cv_bar=no \
./configure ...
It should not appear in the spec files, as it is not packages specific,
but platform specific.
Hopefully autotools provide a support for
On Friday 18 July 2008, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
Marc Haisenko wrote:
What about passing autoconf cache variables ? I regularly need to do
things like:
ac_cv_foo=yes \
ac_cv_bar=no \
./configure ...
It should not appear in the spec files, as it is not packages specific,
but platform
Marc Haisenko wrote:
Hopefully autotools provide a support for system-wide caches and
settings.
You could create a global cache of these variables (for example
OpenEmbedded does). You can modify definition of %configure or define
extra variables in your global RPM macros to build it
On Friday 18 July 2008, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
Marc Haisenko wrote:
Hopefully autotools provide a support for system-wide caches and
settings.
You could create a global cache of these variables (for example
OpenEmbedded does). You can modify definition of %configure or define
Stanislav Brabec wrote:
Attached script changes all references to %{_libdir} form. It is far
from being perfect, but it helps a bit.
By choosing the right order of replacements we could use less rules to
have the same effect. I'm attaching a modified script.
--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,
Marc Haisenko wrote:
And how is that supposed to work ? I would need a way for each spec to tell
RPM I'm now compiling for environment X, grab me the appropiate %configure.
I'm cross-compiling to several different architectures, if I were to only
cross-compile to one then your suggestions
Mark Hatle wrote:
Stanislav Brabec wrote:
- And finally gcc itself has no support for explicit -I and -L
redirection into sysroot.
-L=...
That is a built in option that allows redirect into the sysroot
automatically. -L= is at least recognized by ld.
Our toolchains enable -I= as
10 matches
Mail list logo
