- From: Chris Chabot <chabotc reviewboard com>
- To: Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc linuxweasel com>
- Cc: GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Question
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:53:21 +0100
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
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
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.
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
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.
] [Thread Prev