On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 12:23 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 01:04:05AM +0200, Helge Hess wrote: > > On Jul 4, 2006, at 14:43, Axel Thimm wrote: > > >That's how it is done now already. gnustep-make, libFoundation are > > >non-issues. libobjc-lf2 is a hack, but in this light still packaged > > >decently, but getting rid of it would be a blessing. > > > > We have released libFoundation 1.1.0 which removes the hack > > So gnustep-make can safely use -lobjc instead of -lobjc-lf2 as a > default? > > > and adds a preliminary x86_64 port (seems to work fine but is not > > well tested ...): > > > > http://svn.opengroupware.org/ThirdParty/releases/libFoundation-1.1.0/ > > > > We'll work on packaging it (including RPMs and tarballs) ASAP but > > maybe you want to look into this as well for your Fedora package. > > I'd prefer using a released tarball otherwise it will make the review > process much harder (the reviewer is supposed to check the sources). > > Even if it sounds silly, can you please just officially upload the > tarball to a permanent URL? Thanks! So after this is done it means gnustep-make and libFoundation packages can be added to FE ? Axel will you "arrange" that ? The next step would be sope, Helge is there any magic going on in sope, or is that just a matter of packaging the latest release tarball. Like Axel mentioned working from a non tarball makes things a bit hard (local testing would work of course). - Erwin -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
