> * .spec files are named with version included
Thats exactly the opposite of what is expected
Alan
Alan Cox <[email protected]> writes:
> > * .spec files are named with version included
>
> Thats exactly the opposite of what is expected
>
How so? Given that it actually cleans up after itself you are not left
with multiple .spec files in any directory? Or have I missed something?
> Alan
ttfn,
A
--
Alexander Hoogerhuis | [email protected]
CCNP - CCDP - MCNE - CCSE | +47 908 21 485
"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." --Scott McNealy
> > Thats exactly the opposite of what is expected
>
> How so? Given that it actually cleans up after itself you are not left
> with multiple .spec files in any directory? Or have I missed something?
Most source rpm packages come with a [packagename.spec] file without a
version.
Alan Cox <[email protected]> writes:
> > > Thats exactly the opposite of what is expected
> >
> > How so? Given that it actually cleans up after itself you are not left
> > with multiple .spec files in any directory? Or have I missed something?
>
> Most source rpm packages come with a [packagename.spec] file without a
> version.
>
OK, so the .spec in the tarball should be without (for rpm -ta), and
the one left in %_topdir/SPECS should carry it?
Basically why I made the .spec files carry the version was that I have
several trees (linux-2.4-[ac|plain|clean|mystuff]?and
linux-2.5-[dj|plain|clean]) and that way I can build the trees without
interfering with eachoter, as all the .spec files, tarballs, RPMs and
SRPMs will actually be named something like
kernel-$version-$extraversion. That way, if you build two trees they
wont stamp on eachother.
ttfn,
A
--
Alexander Hoogerhuis | [email protected]
CCNP - CCDP - MCNE - CCSE | +47 908 21 485
"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." --Scott McNealy