On 27 April 2010 12:03, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> Now I recall. I was bringing it (and the spec) in line with "normal"
>> packaging:
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Many Fedora pkgs have abs symlinks though.
>
> I can see why it is tricky
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Now I recall. I was bringing it (and the spec) in line with "normal"
> packaging:
Thanks for the clarification. Many Fedora pkgs have abs symlinks though.
I can see why it is tricky to differentiate between the target path in
the build roo
On 27 April 2010 11:51, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On 27 April 2010 11:44, Martin Langhoff wrote:
>> Curious - I see in your makefile and spec fixups you've changes the
>> obc-* symlinks from abs to relative. Is it better in some sense in the
>> context of an RPM?
>
> Can't recall, but I suspect it wo
On 27 April 2010 11:44, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> Curious - I see in your makefile and spec fixups you've changes the
> obc-* symlinks from abs to relative. Is it better in some sense in the
> context of an RPM?
Can't recall, but I suspect it would have been something in fedora
package guidelines,
Curious - I see in your makefile and spec fixups you've changes the
obc-* symlinks from abs to relative. Is it better in some sense in the
context of an RPM?
(A quick check if my /usr/*bin/ on F9 build box shows a mix of abs and rel).
cheers,
m
--
martin.langh...@gmail.com
mar...@laptop.org
