[Mono-bugs] [Bug 58332][Cri] Changed - spec file to rebuild rpms fails on Fedora FC1

[bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.ximian.com]

Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the
URL shown below and enter your comments there.

Changed by duncan@ximian.com.

http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=58332

--- shadow/58332	2004-05-12 13:29:47.000000000 -0400
+++ shadow/58332.tmp.9613	2004-05-12 16:03:03.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 Bug#: 58332
 Product: Mono: Runtime
 Version: unspecified
 OS: unknown
 OS Details: Fedora FC1 with updates as of 5/11
-Status: NEW   
+Status: NEEDINFO   
 Resolution: 
 Severity: Unknown
 Priority: Critical
 Component: misc
 AssignedTo: duncan@ximian.com                            
 ReportedBy: david.brownlee@comcast.net               
@@ -199,6 +199,29 @@
  /usr/bin/secutil.exe 
 -/usr/share/man/man1/secutil.1 
 +/usr/share/man/man1/secutil.1.gz 
  /usr/bin/pedump 
  /usr/bin/monoresgen 
  /usr/bin/monoresgen.exe
+
+------- Additional Comments From duncan@ximian.com  2004-05-12 16:03 -------
+First, I have 2 questions:
+
+a) Why are the binary RPM packages not working on FC1 with updates?
+What are the conflicts?
+
+b) About the TLS error, what kernel are you running? Is it NPTL
+enabled? It is assumed that RH9, FC1 and SuSE 9.1 are NPTL-enabled
+distributions.
+
+Now, about the SPEC file:
+
+The changes you made were necessary because the SPEC file I uploaded
+came from my RH 9 build environment.
+
+The files you added, cilc, monosn, the various .la files and
+Mono.Security.Win32 are part of the tarball, but they do not need to
+be released. That's why there are not in the original SPEC file I
+published.
+
+I'll look into gzipping our man pages in the next revision of our
+packages.