GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 109828
rpm spec files
Last modified: 2004-12-22 21:47:04 UTC
I'm attaching RPM spec files for gconfmm, libbonobomm, libbonobouimm, libglademm, libgnomecanvasmm, libgnomemm, and libgnomeuimm. These should work on at least RedHat 8 and 9 and probably on most RPM systems.
Created attachment 15414 [details] gconfmm spec file
Created attachment 15415 [details] libbonobomm spec file
Created attachment 15417 [details] libbonobouimm spec file
Created attachment 15418 [details] libglademm spec file
Created attachment 15419 [details] libgnomecanvasmm spec file
Created attachment 15420 [details] libgnomemm spec file
Created attachment 15421 [details] libgnomeuimm spec file
As I said in the gtkmm bug, these are all generated files, and you should be providing patches instead of whole files.
In the cases of gconfmm, libbonobomm, libbonobouimm, and libglademm, there are no spec files in the distribution. So the full file is equivalent to a patch. libgnomecanvasmm, libgnomemm, and libgnomeuimm include spec files which are completely broken and from gnomemm 1.x (circa 2001). The attached files should just replace what's currently there. As far as the files being generated, I'm sorry about that. I should have attached .in versions of the files. However, the only difference is that the first line of each file would be: %define version @VERSION@ instead of what's currently there. I'd rather save everyone some bandwidth and not repost such a minor change.
> In the cases of gconfmm, libbonobomm, libbonobouimm, and > libglademm, there are no spec files in the distribution. So the full > file is equivalent to a patch. There should be. These should all be like gtkmm. > libgnomecanvasmm, libgnomemm, and libgnomeuimm include spec files > which are completely broken and from gnomemm 1.x (circa 2001). The > attached files should just replace what's currently there. No, they have spec.in files. Please provide patches. I'm attaching RPM spec files for gconfmm, libbonobomm, libbonobouimm, libglademm, libgnomecanvasmm, libgnomemm, and libgnomeuimm. These should work on at least RedHat 8 and 9 and probably on most RPM systems. ------- Additional Comments From Gary Peck 2003-04-02 18:44 ------- Created an attachment (id=15414) gconfmm spec file ------- Additional Comments From Gary Peck 2003-04-02 18:45 ------- Created an attachment (id=15415) libbonobomm spec file ------- Additional Comments From Gary Peck 2003-04-02 18:45 ------- Created an attachment (id=15417) libbonobouimm spec file ------- Additional Comments From Gary Peck 2003-04-02 18:45 ------- Created an attachment (id=15418) libglademm spec file ------- Additional Comments From Gary Peck 2003-04-02 18:46 ------- Created an attachment (id=15419) libgnomecanvasmm spec file ------- Additional Comments From Gary Peck 2003-04-02 18:46 ------- Created an attachment (id=15420) libgnomemm spec file ------- Additional Comments From Gary Peck 2003-04-02 18:46 ------- Created an attachment (id=15421) libgnomeuimm spec file ------- Additional Comments From Murray Cumming 2003-04-03 01:17 ------- As I said in the gtkmm bug, these are all generated files, and you should be providing patches instead of whole files. ------- Additional Comments From Gary Peck 2003-04-03 18:07 ------- In the cases of gconfmm, libbonobomm, libbonobouimm, and libglademm, there are no spec files in the distribution. So the full file is equivalent to a patch. libgnomecanvasmm, libgnomemm, and libgnomeuimm include spec files which are completely broken and from gnomemm 1.x (circa 2001). The attached files should just replace what's currently there. > As far as the files being generated, I'm sorry about that. I should > have attached .in versions of the files. However, the only > difference > is that the first line of each file would be: > %define version @VERSION@ > instead of what's currently there. I'd rather save everyone some > bandwidth and not repost such a minor change. No, please save us time by providing patches that I can just mark as ready to apply.
> No, please save us time by providing patches that I can just mark > as ready to apply. Fine. Will do when I have a chance.
I will cloee this bug if there is no chance of anyone doing this work.
I'm sorry, but I just don't have time to play these games. The .spec files I provided work fine and are easy to integrate into the project: just copy them over the old ones as those are completely obsolete. It would take me much longer to create a patch out of them. If you need them, you'll use them. If you don't need them, you won't. I was just trying to help out and replace the old spec files, not take on their maintenance.
We wish to use the *.in files. Please respect our wishes. We are not playing games. We have no intention of pretending to support something that we have no interest in maintaining. If it isn't important enough to you to do it properly then it isn't important to you. So it's no loss.