Re: Question

[Chris Chabot <chabotc reviewboard com>]

Ok, it took a bit of trial and error since im not rpm building tools 
expert yet. But the behaviour as i described below is perfectly explainable.

The "%find_lang %name" macro actualy looks for /usr/locale/*/*/%name.mo 
files, and adds these to the list.

As i mentioned as an example, the control-center spec had a
%find_lang %name
entry, which tried to look for /usr/locale/*/*/control-center.mo files. 
Which ofcource _do not_ exist.

If you change this to %find_lang %name-2.0, it will find the 
control-center-2.0.mo files, and add them to the RPM as it should...

This kinda messup is unfortunatly true for quite a few of the spec files 
on ftp.gnome.org.

As i mentioned before (In a lot of private emails which you seem so keen 
to ignore), ive made some tools to detect missing files in RPM's, 
auto-generate dependency list for the RPM's based on the configure.in 
macro's, and i'm doing some general cleaning. (Using these tools, i 
noticed quite a few .a / .la / .so files, gtk docs, man pages and 
pixmaps  missing from our spec files as well.. im fixing this up as we 
speak. Should make for a whole lot more usable RPM's ;-))

After all that is done, i'll make the spec files public on one of my own 
ftp servers, and i hope you can either adopt them, or use them as a 
resource to fix the spec files / rpms on ftp.gnome.org.

   -- Chris

Gregory Leblanc wrote:

> On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 10:14, Chris Chabot wrote:
>
> > Browsing thru the spec files for the RPM's that had these errors, i 
> > noticed they had a "%find_lang %name", however for a lot of packages 
> > this is invalid.. (ie for control-center this should be 
> > control-center-2.0).
>
> Uh, invalid?  The argument to %find_lang is simply the name of a file in
> which to store the list of localization files (.lang gets appended
> automatically).  So, this can be anything you like, %name is just used
> as a convention.
>
> > As soon as i fixed this up in the spec files, everything worked 
> > perfectly again. Was just clueless if the files were explicitly left out 
> > or that it was a bug... turns out the later is the case ;-)
>
> Huh?  Things changed when you changed the name of the file containing a
> list of files?  That makes very little sense to me.
> 	Greg