Re: Introductions

[Christian Lohmaier <cloph cup uni-muenchen de>]

Hi *,

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 02:50:42PM +0100, Chipzz wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 10:47:09PM -0100, James Ogley wrote:
> > >
> > > Thought I'd send a quick email to the list, partly by way of
> > > introduction, but also as a ping to see if anything's really happening
> > > with the GPP (the latest news on the site is for GNOME 1.4 packages!).
> >
> > Well, then "pong" :-)
> >
> > > [...]
> > > My mind turned to the GPP because I just did some work on Tomboy, adding
> > > the functionality to it's .spec.in file to allow the .spec that results
> > > from auto* to be used with the format rpmbuild -ba --with suse
> > > tomboy.spec to build with SuSE prefix etc as opposed to Red Hat/Fedora
> > > specifications.  Seemed to me that the same rpm-fu could be applied
> > > across the board to GNOME to make it RPM-able on multiple distros
> > > straight out of FTP, any thoughts?
> >
> > I personally don't like to much magic in the spec-files themselves. I
> > prefere a simple %configure %make %makeinstall
> >
> > Whenever you want to build with certain requirements you can use the
> > approptiate rpmmacros file.
> 
> I disagree - users building rpms themselves WILL forget to do this and
> build non-functional rpms.

No, the specs will not be non-functional. They only may not installed
into the desired (or expected) prefix.

Why should a different prefix produce non-functional rpms?

ciao
Christian
-- 
NP: Metallica - Tuesday's Gone