Marco Lamberto wrote: > Please check the patch and _please_ merge those changes in order to build again > easily and RPMmed GIMP. ;) I've taken a look at the patch, Marco. For some reason all your patches were rejected when I tried to apply them so I recreated the patches. However, I am only using four of the six patches you provided. --- gimp-1.2.0lm/plug-ins/perl/Makefile.PL.orig Fri Dec 29 14:03:30 2000 +++ gimp-1.2.0lm/plug-ins/perl/Makefile.PL Fri Dec 29 14:03:32 2000 I'm not sure why you commented out one of the lines in this file so I have left it out for now. --- gimp-1.2.0lm/plug-ins/Makefile.in.orig Fri Dec 29 11:27:02 2000 +++ gimp-1.2.0lm/plug-ins/Makefile.in Fri Dec 29 14:12:30 2000 I also did not use this patch. As far as I can tell this file does not need a DESTDIR patch. It is determining which argument to pass to the make in the sub-directories based on how this level make was invoked. Last night I compared the contents of the .rpm files created using my updated .spec file against the files installed in to the directory tree used for the CVS based version of GIMP. I feel I am picking up everything that my development version was installing so I am making a patch for the ChangeLog file. I will then do one more build to verify everything is ok and release the patches. After this, I will create a spec file for gimp-data-extras. I will also compare the source tree for the GIMP 1.2.0 which I downloaded as a tar ball and compare it against the CVS version I downloaded fresh last night. I know there are some patches that were made to the original 1.2.0 so I will try and incorporate them in to the .src.rpm if there is not already an updated file with the latest patches at gimp.org already available. Cheers! Kevin. (http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/) Internet:kcozens at interlog.com |"What are we going to do today, Borg?" or:ve3syb at rac.ca |"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus: Packet:ve3syb@va3bbs.#scon.on.ca.na| Try to assimilate the world!" #include <disclaimer/favourite> | -Pinkutus & the Borg
