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
practice.
>> >> 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
ahead
>> 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
Version:
tag.
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:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197814
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.
Ralf