Question:
What is the correct place to report/discuss package building for packages which don't have a new package bugzilla entry yet?
I have done a full compare between the old package and mine, remarks: -the CFLAGS and smp make flags part of the old SRPM are a good improvement, I'll copy them to mine -the prepocessor building problems on SEVERN are still there, but I've got a better (cleaner) fix for them. -My rpm doesn't use make install for the demos, actually it doesn't even compile them. Installing all the svgalib demos into /usr/bin is just command namespace polution and really makes no sense, so I drop all the demos in: /usr/share/doc/svgalib-devel-1.4.3/demos With a modified makefile which allows them to be compiled in that dir and then run from that dir, that seems much cleaner to me. -besides that my svaglib version contains all the fixes from the debian svgalib as proposed in bugzilla comment 12, these consist of security fixes!, fixes and some improvments.
Regards,
Hans
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 23:26:46 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
-I currently have a svgalib (stable version) src rpm sitting on my hd ready for submission.
There has been an earlier attempt at getting svgalib packaged for Red Hat Linux 9.0.93 and older: https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=444
-- EuropeSwPatentFree http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es
