On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 09:29:56AM -0500, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>> For what it's worth, this isn't the first complaint I've heard about
>> the spec files we "maintain" in our tree.
>
> That is because Nico keeps bringing it up :)
Actually,
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 09:29:56AM -0500, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>> For what it's worth, this isn't the first complaint I've heard about
>> the spec files we "maintain" in our tree.
>
> That is because Nico keeps bringing it up :)
It's been
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 09:29:56AM -0500, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> For what it's worth, this isn't the first complaint I've heard about
> the spec files we "maintain" in our tree.
That is because Nico keeps bringing it up :)
> In our defense, we do
> remove the packages/ directory from the shipped
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 10:39:01AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> I'm happy to submit these as distinct issues for the issue tracker,
>> but in the short therm, pulling out the unusable rhel-3 and rhel-4
>> packaging would be a good star
On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 10:39:01AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> I'm happy to submit these as distinct issues for the issue tracker,
> but in the short therm, pulling out the unusable rhel-3 and rhel-4
> packaging would be a good start.
Feel free to file these issues so this doesn't fall throu
The RPM packaging comonents in trunk/packages/rpm are out of date,
unusable, and likely to destroy a developer's build environment. They
should either be completely disabled or seriously updated. There are a
couple of different issues, which I'll describe in order:
* All the Makefiles replace the
