Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: neon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226189 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-27 12:50 EST ------- When/if the .la dependence is fixed, the changes most certainly should be pushed upstream. Your assertion that this be a prerequisite to any modification of fedora packaging is misplaced, imo. And I stand by my statement, any app that needs help to build via 'neon-config --la-file' and fails without libneon.la presence, is broken by design (hopefully that's nicer than saying stooopid). I'm making progress wrt subversion... looks like a one-line patch is all that is required(1): --- subversion-1.4.3/build/ac-macros/neon.m4.la_file 2006-10-20 18:44:09.000000000 -0500 +++ subversion-1.4.3/build/ac-macros/neon.m4 2007-04-27 11:34:44.000000000 -0500 @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ test "$svn_allowed_neon" = "any"; then svn_allowed_neon_on_system="yes" SVN_NEON_INCLUDES=[`$neon_config --cflags | sed -e 's/-D[^ ]*//g'`] - NEON_LIBS=`$neon_config --la-file` + NEON_LIBS=`$neon_config --libs` CFLAGS=["$CFLAGS `$neon_config --cflags | sed -e 's/-I[^ ]*//g'`"] svn_lib_neon="yes" break any others? (1) Though one could *greatly* simplify it's content/logic by simply using pkg-config constructs, esp since pkg-config is able to differentiate between static and non-static configs (but that goes beyond the scope of this discussion) -- 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