[Mono-devel-list] rpm packaging from CVS
Brett Lentz (Excell Data Corporation)
a-blentz at microsoft.com
Fri Oct 8 18:49:56 EDT 2004
Thanks for the update.
However, I'm curious about the potential problems with how these specs
define the Provides and Requires elements.
In every spec, they Provide a 'ximian-foo' package, yet the Requires
simply indicates package 'foo'.
For example, fedora-2-i386-mono.spec says:
%package -n mono-runtime-devel
And fedora-2-i386-gtksourceview-sharp.spec says:
Won't this have rpm complaining about missing/wrong dependencies at
install time because the semantics aren't consistent?
There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.
---Ken Olsen, President, Digital Equipment, 1977
From: Duncan Mak [mailto:duncan at ximian.com]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 3:27 PM
To: Brett Lentz (Excell Data Corporation)
Cc: Bryan Smant; mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
Subject: RE: [Mono-devel-list] rpm packaging from CVS
On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 19:45 -0400, Duncan Mak wrote:
> I'll update the packagers page ASAP.
The packagers page has been updated.
Duncan Mak <duncan at ximian.com>
More information about the Mono-devel-list