Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 23:01 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> 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 rpm defects?
I'm only *suggesting* an alternative, and IMO better/safer, way of packaging
these items to avoid the pitfalls associated with building multiple items
and possibly using multiple Version: tags inside a single specfile. By all
means ignore it, if you deem it beneath you to consider.