Re: Several application installs are slightly broken...
- From: jgotts linuxsavvy com
- To: "Germano Rizzo" <manomano ciaoweb it>
- Cc: gnome-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Several application installs are slightly broken...
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 19:00:42 -0400
In message <005101c0bba6$3fa64380$0558623e e6z1t6>, "Germano Rizzo" writes:
>problems:
>*libgtop - libglade: the revision number isn't substituted, so the resulting
>RPM is some strange libglade-0.16-SNAP.i686.rpm instead of (say)
>libglade-0.16-1.i686.rpm
This is a minor quibble. I've substituted the standard versioning system on my
systems, but there's nothing wrong with installing the "SNAP" RPM.
>*libgtop: the @VERSION@ variable value is somehow set to 1.0.11-cvs instead
>of 1.0.12, and this breaks the specfile, as there can't be "-" characters
This is evil. For a while there were some packages named <version>-beta which
also had RPM problems. My workaround was to build <version>-beta as, say,
<version>-1 and <version> as <version>-2. Red Hat also does this with CVS
trees.
>*ORBit: there's another specfile in the popt/ directory, that makes RPM look
>for a ghost file (popt-0.4.tar.gz); it's sufficient to delete this second
>specfile (eventually also from Makefile.am, rerunning autoconf/make)
>*gnome-applets: the generated RPM contains only the .gnorba files... and,
>needless to say, it's totally useless
>*imlib 1.9.9: the rpm building goes flawlessly, but if I try to install the
>generated RPM's, I get complainings about lack of libgr-devel and
>libgr-progs... I don't have it, right, it's my fault; but I think it should
>check for them *before*
>*xml-i18n-tools don't have a specfile... but I don't think they're supposed
>to, after all...
I've written a spec file for this.
>*gnome-audio: compilation simply fails... sorry, I can't say more, I've
>accidentally deleted the package... <:]...
>I have an 'upgraded' RH 7 (glibc 2.2, latest gcc 2.96, RPM 4.02, glib/gtk+
>1.2.10, gtk-pixbuf 0.10.1); maybe some of these errors are caused by my
>configuration?
No, I doubt it.
I have fixed/written spec files on my machine for all of GNOME 1.4 (they even
have correct Group:'s), but I haven't had enough time to check them into CVS.
Maybe I'll take care of a few right now.
--
John GOTTS <jgotts linuxsavvy com> http://linuxsavvy.com/staff/jgotts
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]