Re: spec files (was Re: Domains)

[jacob berkman <jacob ximian com>]

On 14 Mar 2001 08:55:50 -0800, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> This is on gnome-hackers, as there's nothing private about this
> 
> On 14 Mar 2001 08:58:54 -0500, jacob berkman wrote:
> > On 14 Mar 2001 04:29:21 -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 10:04:05AM +0100, Martin Baulig wrote:
> > > > However, I was looking at LibGTop and GTop and their .spec files are all
> > > > from 1999.
> > > 
> > >   Can we consider this a bug (at the maintainer level) ?
> > > 
> > > > And once this plain GNOME thingie is established, why do we need
> > > > the .spec file in the packages at all ? If people want a .spec file, they
> > > > will be able to find a working one there.
> > > 
> > >   Hum, spec files are generated usually from .spec.in
> > 
> > this is to get the paths right.
> 
> I don't think I've seen many which use this to generate the paths, and
> by doing this, you make the spec file totally non-portable.

it is non-portable no matter what you do right now, without
modifications to your rpm setup (i think).

> The best
> things get generated are the version number (that's nice, as you only
> have to change it one place per release), and the package name. 

right... i forgot that this was the use and not the paths, sorry.

> > now, please consider that the paths vary between distributions.
> 
> RPM has some fairly standardized macros for defining file names in terms
> of the local environment.

this does not take into account that on (for example) caldera, glib is
in /usr, gtk in /usr/X11R6, and gnome in /opt/gnome (since kde is in
/opt/kde).

welcome to the world of non-FHS and linux distributions.  

the hell i lived in a year ago.

jacob
-- 
C-x i .signature

_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers