On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 15:47 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 13:26 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 12:40 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> >> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 18:41 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
>> >>>> Let's file it under hear-say then and move on.
>> >>> No comment
>> >>> c.f. below and note the output of the "echos".
>> >> I think it's safe to just say this is an example of bad rpm
>> >> If you really want/need two different sources and versions, package
>> >> them separately.
>> > ... you are ignoring the fact that there exist cases where this is
>> > impossible.
>> Seriously, it's bad practice, don't do it. But don't mind me, go
>> and do it, if it's so "impossible" to do otherwise...
> 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
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.