On Sun, 2006-12-03 at 13:26 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 12:30:32PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > Axel Thimm schrieb: > > > On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:00:16AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > >>> Axel.Thimm AT ATrpms.net: > > >>> smart > > >>> FE4 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc4 > 0:0.42-39.fc6) > > >>> FE5 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc5 > 0:0.42-39.fc6) > > >>> FE6 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc6 > 0:0.42-39.fc6) > > >> I wonder if it would be reasonable to suppress rawhide in this report > > >> until we get closer to test time. Since rawhide occasionally doesn't > > >> build, and maintainers often concentrate on released versions when > > >> fixing important bugs or pushing security fixes, the information often > > >> isn't pertinent. > > > FWIW the smart build fails on KDE not liking the newest autoconf: This a stupid and broken script in smart's source (contrib/ksmarttray/admin/cvs.sh). Either fix this script, kickass upstream to fix it or abandon ksmarttray. > > > [...] > > > > Why can't you simply run autofoo on a FC-6 machine, create a patch, > > bzip2 it and import it to the look aside cache and then use it as %patch > > from the spec file? That what several people recommend on different > > fedora-lists in the past, as they say "it's bad to run autofoo in a spec > > file". > > You end up with undeterministic builds that fail only > sometimes. > > That's because if master and generated files are changed at > the same time, e.g. through a patch, then make may consider the > generated files not to be newer that the master and will try to > regenerate nonetheless. Sorry, Axel, this is nonsense. Ralf -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
