Re: Gnumeric build problems

[Toralf Lund <toralf kscanners com>]

On 2001.09.12 21:05 jgotts linuxsavvy com wrote:
> In message <20010912190122 C11394 indonesia kscanners no>, Toralf Lund
> writes:
> 
> >The RPM still isn't complete, though; it's at least necessary to add
> >%{prefix}/share/gnumeric/%{version} to the file list.
> 
> >*SIGH* I wish everyone would get rid of this bad habit of installing
> >directly from source (or whatever they do), and start supporting package
> >management for real...
> 
> The spec file for gnumeric in CVS is supported and works.  I don't know
> what
> your situation is but your patch was bogus.
> 
> I will be checking in some mostly cosmetic changes soon that provide a
> finer-grained control over the /usr/share/gnumeric directory, but I have
> been
> working very hard for over a year insuring that the gnumeric spec file is
> working and up to date.
Actually, it looks like there is a problem with the commands in %install
rather than the spec file as such. I'm quite sure 'make install' leaves out
some bits, but I haven't yet been able to figure out why. (I'm working on
it right now.)

I'm glad to hear that you support RPM, it seems to me that many other
package maintainers don't. Oh, yes, .spec files are included on most source
trees, but how often are they *used*? Well, I shouldn't expect binary
releases to be tested for arbitrary checkouts of development versions, I
suppose, but what I do expect is that someone continually ensures the tree
is complete and consistent, and building/installing RPMs is a very nice
test in conjunction with this!

- Toralf