Re: gconf.spec.in patch

[Ross Golder <ross golder org>]

On Tue, 2001-10-16 at 01:39, Chipzz wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2001, Ross Golder wrote:
> 
> > From: Ross Golder <ross golder org>
> > Subject: gconf.spec.in patch
> >
> > The attached patch is necessary to make an RPM using 'rpm -ta
> > gconf-1.1.2.tar.gz' from a 'make dist' from CVS HEAD (as of today). It
> > looks like it hadn't been maintained for a while.
> >
> > Please let me know if it should be committed.
> >
> > --
> > Ross
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks wrong:
> 
> +%{prefix}/lib/GConf/2/*.a
> +%{prefix}/lib/GConf/2/*.la
> 
> Why do we need static versions of plugins?
> (These shouldn't have been built in the first place, something that happens
> quite often)
> 
> It's not your fault thou I guess, rather the Makefile.am 's should be
> changed I IMHO.
> 

You're right, I reckon. Static plugins don't make sense to me, either.
I've committed the spec file with these files commented out in case
anyone disagrees. I'll leave whipping them out of Makefile.am to someone
else :)

--
Ross