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

Re: Packaging question time



On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:25:58 +0200, Michael Schwendt
<fedora wir-sind-cool org> wrote:
> 
> qt-devel (or /usr/bin/qmake, which would only break if qmake were
> moved to a different bin directory).
Ok, so I guess I will stick with qt-devel. Anyway it is somewhat
disappointing that a library NOT DEPENDING from qt will have qt-devel
as BuildRequire.
But of course, this is an upstream issue...

> 
> > 3 would make sense but I guess it will be detrimental to the package
> > configurability (my chosen options will be hardcoded in the Makefile).
> > Moreover, how would I deal with the additional file in the .spec??
> 
> You would either insert your prebuilt Makefile as a %patch or include
> it as a %{SOURCEx} file. The ugly thing about a prebuilt Makefile most
> likely will be that it contains hardcoded paths (to programs,
> libraries and headers), which would increase the maintenance
> requirements.
Ok, this is confirming my fears, so for now I will ignore this option.

Thanks for your opinion


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