Re: Gnome spec files: nobody has made any promises about them.

[John Gotts <jgotts ww2 tqstats com>]

In message <38EC92A0.84A190CC@ukans.edu>, "Paul E. Johnson" writes:

>John Gotts wrote:
>> 
>> In message <38EA19C7.14B08544@ukans.edu>, Paul Johnson writes:
>> >As a result of my experience, I cringe whenever anybody recommends a
>> >simple "rpm -ta xxx".  ANybody building an rpm should at least untar the
>> >package and inspect the spec file to see if it is up-to-date.

>> For the last several months, I've been submitting patches and sometimes new
>> SPEC files to keep GNOME in sync with Red Hat changes.

>> I'm only aware of two packages where the Red Hat and the GNOME SPEC files ar
>e
>> more than trivially out of sync: mc and gdm (but I've posted preliminary
>> patches to help rectify the latter).

>> So your complaints are basically no longer valid.

>> John

>It sounds like you are making a promise about the spec files :)

>It doesn't help, in my case, that gmc is the one spec file I always
>"sample" for compatability...

It's a bit of a sticky problem, because Red Hat adds
/usr/lib/desktop-links/redhat.links.  We don't want these links on all systems,
but not having them breaks existing desktop icons if you've upgraded gmc on a
Red Hat system.

However, aside from this cosmetic problem, --upgraded gmc still works fine.

Perhaps this file could be added into a contrib directory and installed if a
Red Hat system is detected (the presence of /etc/redhat-release could be used).

Red Hat also adds ldp.xpm which could probably be added to the stock mc without
any problem.  Finally, there are five outstanding patches which could be
merged.

So it's nowhere near an untractable problem.

John

--
John GOTTS <jgotts@linuxsavvy.com>  http://www.linuxsavvy.com/staff/jgotts