On 10/22/2012 05:34 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:14:25AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
On 10/22/2012 10:06 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/22/2012 03:47 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
commit e00f8293097f8331883f1df35f74be70fbb290b9
Author: Petr Písař <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Oct 22 15:46:27 2012 +0200
Work-aroung missing libecb package on build-triggering host
perl-Coro.spec | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Coro.spec b/perl-Coro.spec
index 50a855d..31589a5 100644
--- a/perl-Coro.spec
+++ b/perl-Coro.spec
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ Requires: perl(EV) >= 3
Requires: perl(Event) >= 1.08
Requires: perl(Guard) >= 0.5
Requires: perl(Storable) >= 2.15
-Provides: bundled(libecb) = %(rpm -q libecb --qf '%{VERSION}')
+Provides: bundled(libecb)%(rpm -q libecb --qf ' = %{VERSION}'
2>/dev/null)
I could be wrong, but IIRC, calling rpm inside of rpm specs is not
allowed in Fedora.
Apart of this, what you are doing is rendering your built
non-deterministic - Another "strictly forbidden" item.
Agreed. What you're trying to say essentially is that the bundled
libecb version matches the system/non-bundled version, which really
doesn't make any sense. I'd suggest you simply remove the
versioning (or list the real bundled version some other way).
This is something like static library. Thus code gets frozen into the package
at build-time. So I concluded it's good idea to know which version of the
library the binary package incorporates.
However if you think this is bad idea I will remove it.
Yes, I do - I am insisting on the rpm calls to be removed.
Ralf
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
