[users] Subversion 1.6.17 srpm tools, for RHEL 4/5/6 compatible 1.6.x releases

Denis Fateyev denis at fateyev.com
Wed Apr 25 11:49:26 CEST 2012

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Denis Fateyev <denis at fateyev.com> wrote:
> 2) I doubt that the trick with `gnome-keyring.h` in `BuildRequires` is
>> really needed. The package called the same in both releases, actually
>> `gnome-keyring-devel`.
> That actually came from Fedora 17 testing.  Fedora has been renaming a
> bunch of utilities with "lib" as a prefix. It makes keeping consistent
> compatibilities.... awkward. There are other awkwardnesses, so I can roll
> back that change.
> Fedora 17 is going to be a very, very painful upgrade for many Repoforge
> packages.

I have no idea regarding RHEL 7 and so on, probably we will have these
issues in the future, who knows. But for current releases I think it would
better have ordinary package names as dependencies. It's more logical.

As for the build procedure itself, seems packages are built nicely in RHEL5
>> and RHEL6 under mock, but I have experienced some unexpected multilib
>> issues with static build (pure and simple `rpmbuild`.) Since mock works
>> fine it cannot be considered as a problem unless DAR uses the same technic
>> (I haven't checked it though.)
> I bet you have neon-devel installed. That causes the autoconf to detect
> the wrong neon. I've not pursued that, much preferring to use a "mock"
> environment to avoid just that sort of library incompatibility.
> Hmm. I *could* teach the %setup to check for neon-devel, and exit if
> present on RHEL 4. That could be nasty in a system that is used to build
> other software....

I have `neon-devel` installed since I have built the packages under RHEL 5
and 6 x86_64. As I have said before I don't consider it as a serious issue,
because there are no problems with mock for the moment.

wbr, Denis.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120425/917ea378/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the users mailing list