Re: [gnome-db] libgda-0.91.0 specfile error?

[Adam Williams <adam morrison-ind com>]

> >>>Sry, "libgda-0.91.0" SRPM from gnome-db ftp specfile.
> >>>Meant the specfile on the SRPM, actually this issue is not present on
> >>>cvs's specfile.in 
> >>well, then, no need to patch CVS. Maybe we should rebuild the SRPM with
> >>the spec file in CVS. Adam, how does that sound?
> >Fine with me.  So yank just that file from CVS and build with the 0.91
> >tarball?
> >I think I missed the first message in this thread, not exactly clear
> >what the error is.
> I don't understand the point of the patch either.  It would just revert 
> the spec file back to it's 'default' settings.  It looks like the SRPM 
> he was using had been edited to include support for MDB and SQLITE.  At 

Yes, it has.  And hence binary RPMs for those providers are available. 
I've tried to make the provider selection as complete as possible - RPMs
for the "subordinate" MDB and SQLITE libraries and other files are also
available both on the gnome-db ftp site, my ftp site, and other places.

I asssumed that ANYONE building from the SPEC in CVS or the SPEC in the
source RPM would adjust the list of providers to build, reflecting their
own need or system configuration.

But if the SPEC file should be placed back to the default after building
the binary RPMS, that isn't a problem.

> this moment, the libgda.spec.in in the 0.91.0 tarball (and presumably 
> CVS as well) enables Postgres, MySQL and ODBC by default.  All others 
> are off.