On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 15:47 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 13:26 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > >> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 12:40 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > >> >> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> >>> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 18:41 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> Let's file it under hear-say then and move on. > >> >>> No comment > >> >>> > >> >>> c.f. below and note the output of the "echos". > >> >> I think it's safe to just say this is an example of bad rpm practice. > >> >> If you really want/need two different sources and versions, package > >> >> them separately. > >> > > >> > ... you are ignoring the fact that there exist cases where this is > >> > impossible. > >> > >> Seriously, it's bad practice, don't do it. But don't mind me, go ahead > >> and do it, if it's so "impossible" to do otherwise... > > > > Check out any one tree style built GCC+newlib rpm, > > Should be fine, only one > Version: > tag. What you say is equivalent to assigning GCC the version of an OS's libc rsp. vice versa. Pardon, but politeness prohibits to further comment on this. > > check out autogen + libopts (currently under review). > > Couldn't find that one. Pointer? currently under review == Review request in bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814 autogen-5.8.x ships with libopts-27.1.2.tar.gz integrated A proper way to build libopts would be to generate libopts-27.1.2*rpms and autogen-5.8.x*rpms from it. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
