[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Self introduction Hans de Goede



Question:

What is the correct place to report/discuss package building for packages which don't have a new package bugzilla entry yet?

I have done a full compare between the old package and mine,
remarks:
-the CFLAGS and smp make flags part of the old SRPM are a good
 improvement, I'll copy them to mine
-the prepocessor building problems on SEVERN are still there, but
 I've got a better (cleaner) fix for them.
-My rpm doesn't use make install for the demos, actually it doesn't
 even compile them. Installing all the svgalib demos into /usr/bin
 is just command namespace polution and really makes no sense,
 so I drop all the demos in:
 /usr/share/doc/svgalib-devel-1.4.3/demos
 With a modified makefile which allows them to be compiled in
 that dir and then run from that dir, that seems much cleaner to me.
-besides that my svaglib version contains all the fixes from the debian
 svgalib as proposed in bugzilla comment 12, these consist of
 security fixes!, fixes and some improvments.

Regards,

Hans



Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 23:26:46 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:


-I currently have a svgalib (stable version) src rpm sitting on my hd ready for submission.


There has been an earlier attempt at getting svgalib packaged
for Red Hat Linux 9.0.93 and older:
https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=444



-- EuropeSwPatentFree http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]