On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:12:34 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 15:33, Charles R. Anderson wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:19:56AM -0400, Neal D. Becker wrote: > > > > > 2) Need to update buildrequires from XFree86-devel to xorg-x11-devel. > > > > > > > Maybe instead you can specify an implementation-agnostic > > > > buildrequires, such as BuildRequires: /usr/X11R6/include/X11/X.h > > > Well, this would work with rpmbuild, but ... > > > > > > ... unfortunately mach is not able to handle file build dependencies :( > > > > Which is not a blocker criterion, fortunately. Several such build > > dependencies are used successfully in available packages. > Now I am stumped :) What does fedora.us use instead? As I've explained to you in private mail some weeks ago, Enrico Scholz has patched mach in several places, so the fedora.us build system can handle file/directory based build requirements fine for several months now, e.g. BuildRequires: /usr/include/tcl.h /usr/include/tk.h http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~ensc/fedora.us-build/mach/ > To me, "not being able to rely on file build dependencies" has become a > growing pain in using mach for preparation of package submission to > Fedora. Well, I've done test builds and QA without mach for many months, and I still prefer fedora-rmdevelrpms for many reviews. Mach is nice for automated rebuilds of working src.rpms, but I still need ordinary chroots and a multi-boot machine to test-run applications, too. Everything else would be half-hearted. -- Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow) - Linux 2.4.22-1.2197.nptl
