[Bug 225806] Merge Review: glibc

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: glibc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225806





------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com  2008-04-04 10:50 EST -------
OK, just revisiting this. Only one change didn't make it in:

--- glibc.spec.BAD	2008-04-04 10:43:37.000000000 -0400
+++ glibc.spec	2008-04-04 10:48:06.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
 %define glibcdate 20080328T1347
-%define glibcname glibc
-%define glibcsrcdir glibc-20080328T1347
+%define glibcsrcdir glibc-%{glibcdate}
 %define glibc_release_tarballs 0
 %define run_glibc_tests 1
 %define auxarches i586 i686 athlon sparcv9v sparc64v alphaev6
@@ -38,8 +37,8 @@ Source1: %(echo %{glibcsrcdir} | sed s/g
 Source2: %(echo %{glibcsrcdir} | sed s/glibc-/glibc-libidn-/).tar.bz2
 %define glibc_release_unpack -a1 -a2
 %endif
-Source3: %{glibcname}-fedora-%{glibcdate}.tar.bz2
-Patch0: %{glibcname}-fedora.patch
+Source3: %{name}-fedora-%{glibcdate}.tar.bz2
+Patch0: %{name}-fedora.patch
 Patch1: %{name}-ia64-lib64.patch
 Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 Obsoletes: glibc-profile < 2.4

Basically, there is no longer a need for a "%{glibcname}" macro, since %{name}
serves that purpose. Also, we should use %{glibcdate} when defining %{glibcsrcdir}.

Aside from this change, everything else (while somewhat complex), looks ok. Once
I see that change go into rawhide CVS, I'll sign off on this review.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.