Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cegui - Free library providing windowing and widgets for graphics APIs / engines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193342 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx 2006-06-07 13:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #14) > Couple of things, I'm confused about what you're saying with regards to the > tolua++-devel specfile missing lua-devel? The specfile for tolua++ I have here > shows it is included, also if I do a requirements on the devel RPM downloaded > from the repo it tells me.. > > libc.so.6 > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) > libdl.so.2 > liblua-5.1.so > libm.so.6 > libtolua++-5.1.so > lua-devel >= 5.1 > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > tolua++ = 1.0.92-3 > You're right, tolua++ is fine. Its a bug in lua, the base lua package still provides lua-devel even though the package has been split. I'll file a bug against lua. > Regarding the binding regeneration - the reason why I don't specify the full > path is because CEGUI.pkg requires the other pkg files also, but tolua++ looks > in the current directory for them (hence why I do the cd first) only, so it > fails with something like can't find Basic.pkg. I'm sure CEGUI.pkg and the other > .pkg files could be patched, but this seems overkill when a two lines of shell > script is enough. Indeed that would be overkill, leave it as is. Do beware though that if you now add additional commands to the end of %prep that they get executed in a different dir then one might expect. Also I really feel that these commands belong in %build as they are building not prepping, once they are in %install you need to restore the dir, best to use this for that: pushd xxxxx tolua++ xxxxx popd -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review