Re: building gnome-vfs 2.3.1

["James T. Richardson" <tkf-ml teknofile org>]

That's what I figured. I guess that's a good enough place to start as
any :-) 

BTW, if anyone is interested, I did finally get .spec files built for:

control-center-2.3.2
gnome-vfs-2.3.1
libgnomeui-2.3.3
nautilus-2.3.4

Now if they're right..... well... they built :-) heh.

That said, this evening I'll open some bugzilla records and (hopefully)
figure out how to post the patches.

James

On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 20:13, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 03:53, James Richardson wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I am trying to compile the gnome-vfs package (version 2.3.1) using the
> > spec file included; however, according to the spec file, it
> > 
> > BuildRequires: bonobo-devel >= 2.0.0
> > BuildRequires: ORBit-devel >= 2.4.0
> > 
> > Where on earth can I find these sources? I've looked every and can't
> > find them, not even in CVS. ORBit seems to have been decreciated since
> > 0.5.x (and replaced by ORBit2 i guess). And I can't find anything but
> > bonobo-1.x.
> 
> Firstly, caveat emptor. As a general rule, the spec files in tarballs
> are not really being maintained. At one point there was a moderately
> active GNOME Packaging Project which kept them maintained. Periodically
> somebody might fix (for some definition of "fix" that may not be
> synonymous with "correctly adjust") the odd spec file, but pick a random
> spec file in a random tarball and I would not be surprised to see it
> fail.
> 
> This seems to be a case in point. If you trace through the dependencies,
> gnome-vfs depends only on ORBit2, libbonobo and glib, so those
> BuildRequires lines should probably be
> 
> BuildRequires: libbonobo-devel >= ...
> BuildRequires: ORBit2-devel >= ...
> 
> I (and no doubt others) keep meaning to go through and make everything
> build correctly via "rpmbuild -tb <tarball>", but there are so many
> things to do in life and GNOME and so little time.
> 
> If you fix a few things like this, you may wish to file bugzilla reports
> including the patch. Some maintainers have expressed active displeasure
> at having the spec files in their tarballs, since they have to be
> maintained, but I suspect most do not care one way or the other so any
> fixes yo umake will be welcome.
> 
> Malcolm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-devel-list mailing list
> gnome-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-devel-list