Created attachment 13316 [details] [review]
patch to update spec file

With appropriate blessing from the gtk+ gods I could check this in myself.

Are you volunteering to maintain the spec file? For
what set of OS's/versions?

Otherwise, I'm going to dup this on bug 102231.

(Idle not-actually-review -- you need to check:

if [ $1 = 0 ] ; then
        /bin/rm -f %{_sysconfdir}/gtk-2.0/gtk.immodules
        /bin/rm -f %{_sysconfdir}/gtk-2.0/gdk-pixbuf.loaders
fi

In your %postun or upgrades won't work)

I was under the impression that you had a maintainer for it already :)
I mainly deal with RH based systems so I'm not sure maintaining it is
even needed as RH has thier own specfiles.

*shrug*

No, I don't maintain the spec files in the GTK+ source
(they'd work then, right?)

I can't just use the spec files I use to build Red Hat packages
since:

 - They contain things that exist in the Red Hat RPM 
   configuration but may not exist in stock RPM, or 
   in older versions of RPM.
 - They frequently contain patches of one sort or another

But I don't believe that a "generic" spec file is possible.
I let the gnome packaging project do whatever they wanted
to the spec files while that was around, but it has since
more or less folded.

For what its worth I agree with bug 102231, either it should be fixed
or punted :)

(Idle mumbling)
You should probably at least take the %post and fixed %postun for the
RH version.

The Red Hat version has plenty good %post and %postun :-)

I'm going to go with the removal route:

 - I only want the spec files in the distro if they are
   tested.
 - The most minimal way I could possibly test would be to make
   sure they work for Red Hat. If I did Red Hat 8.0 packages
   as part of the release process then that might be a way
   of testing. (I do do Red Hat distribution packages before
   putting the tarballs up currently.)
 - But a) I don't have a clean 8.0 box to build on handy.
   and b) any packages for Red Hat 8.0 would need various
   patches for integration with the Red Hat desktop.

I'll leave the spec files in CVS now and just remove them
for the distribution in case someone wants to pick up the
ball.



*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 102231 ***