Re: sample nautilus SRPM does not build on RH 7.0

[Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc cu-portland edu>]

On 21 May 2001 20:52:30 +0200, Jens Finke wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 21 May 2001, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> > > The sample nautilus SRPM from ftp.linux.org.uk did not build for me on
> > > Red Hat 7.0 without removing the "--enable-more-warnings" from the
> > > configure options.  Its a Red Hat 7.0 / nautilus 1.0.1.1 bug as opposed
> > > to packaging but it may be worth you removing this from future spec
> > > files unless its fixed in nautilus.
> >
> > Do you have the errata from Red Hat 7.0 applied?  I'm guessing that you
> > don't, because I built that RPM on a Red Hat 7.0 system, although
> > patched to the hilt.  Try grabbing the gcc and glibc patches, at least,
> > and see if that works.
> 
> I had the same problem with a SuSE 7.0 installation. It's a 'bug' in glibc
> somewhere, which results in a number of pointer arithmetic errors. We
> shouldn't use this option if it breaks compilation on wide spread systems.
> If a user recompiles a package, its mostly a tested official release,
> which doesn't stop during compiling. The --enable-more-warnings option is
> usefull if you actively develop software and are looking for possible
> bugs.

Hmm...  The Nautilus developers use RPMs actively to get a wider testing
base, so we're not likely to see such a change in the CVS version of the
spec file (and personally, I don't think such a change should go in).
Perhaps we can put a recomendation into the CVS spec file, with a note
about --enable-more-warnings.  Since it compiles if your glibc isn't
broken, should we really not --enable-more-warnings?  Most of the people
who compile it themselves should know how to read the spec file, at
least a little bit.  If they can't do that, then they're probably using
(or should be using) the binary packages.  What say you?
	Greg