Christopher Stone wrote:
On 7/3/06, Tim Jackson <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423
http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/specs/php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging.spec
http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/srpms/php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging-0.1.1-1.src.rpm
I do not like the way patches are handled in this case. I have
reworked the spec file here:
http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging.spec
Looks fine to me. I agree that's more readable.
Where the patches are done normally. Perhaps we should use this type
of install as a standard? That is, untarring the tarball, making any
necessary patches, then installing with the .xml file?
Good idea. The end result should be exactly the same. Although it does
add an extra step for packages that *don't* need patching. (Which
hopefully most won't; PEAR_Command_Packaging should be an exception)
Tim
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
