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
> 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:
> 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
BTW: The work-around is pretty easy: Don't use %version in rpm specs,
but hard-code them or redirect them to other %defines.