On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 23:01 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 15:47 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > >>> 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. > > This discussion is digressing even further offtopic, but... > IMO, the "proper way" would be to build bootstraps (gcc+newlib and > autogen+libopts), then use those to build *separately* each of > gcc,newlib and autogen,libopts. So you are demanding to abandon features, due to rpm defects? BTW: The work-around is pretty easy: Don't use %version in rpm specs, but hard-code them or redirect them to other %defines. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
