Re: [xine-devel] Re: xine-ui-0.9.14 problems (and fixes) for the "rpm -ta" process of building RPMs

[Manfred T. <Man...@ii...>]

Am Freitag, 8. November 2002 17:45 schrieb Miguel Freitas:

> .spec files have being subject of lengthy discussions here... some
> people like several splitted rpms (very flexible) and some like the
> big (easy to install/update) single libxine rpm (i'm one of those).

I don't have something against one big rpm. The problem is, there are a 
lot of support questions on packman, where to get this or that library, 
to make xine install without dependency problems.
And I see the problem, why do I have to install dxr3 drivers, when I 
don't have this card or aalib, when I never want have textouput, xvid 
when I don't have a xvid encoded movie, ...
I do have only one rpm to be installed for xine, but a lot of other, or 
rpm-database has undecleared dependencys.

> the point in providing a spec file in our tarball is not for
> packagers (including you, freshrpms, mandrake, etc). these are the
> guys that know what they are doing and can build the rpms whatever
> they want.

>
> consensus was that provided spec file must be simple. it's main use
> is for the user who wants to simply do a "rpm -ta" (so no dependency
> issues here). also we should not stick to anything distro-specific to
> avoid problems.

Ok, when this is wanted, I don't have any problems with it. I will keep 
the specfiles simple on xine and do the improved ones for packman.
If anybodys interested in, SourceRPMs can be dow

> in short: imho you should not split the libxine.rpm again. however,
> any fixes (specialy for improving compatibility) are highly welcomed!
> :)

Therefor I've asked befor sending something that's not wanted.

-- 
Machs gut    | http://www.iivs.de/schwinde/buerger/tremmel/

Manfred      | http://www.knightsoft-net.de