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

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 08:39 -0400, Adam Williams wrote:
> > >>>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.
> 
isn't it possible to have the spec file just build things if the
provider needed libraries are available only? That is, as we do in
configure.in, can the spec file contain instructions for only building
the providers that have their libraries available?

cheers