From qboosh at pld-linux.org Mon May 17 21:50:01 2004 From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 21:50:01 +0200 Subject: has in PEAR status In-Reply-To: <20040103194519.GA26868@mysza.eu.org> References: <20040103192411.GB28195@satan.blackhosts> <20040103194519.GA26868@mysza.eu.org> Message-ID: <20040517195001.GA27215@satan.blackhosts> [moved this old thread to pld-devel-en, maybe here we could find some consensus... as "This class has in PEAR status: %{_status}" looks very ugly to me] On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 08:45:19PM +0100, Adam Go??biowski wrote: > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 08:24:11PM +0100, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > (1) "In PEAR this package has status: %{_status}." > > (2) "In PEAR status of this package is: %{_status}." > > (3) "This package status is %{_status} in PEAR." > > (4) "Status of this package is %{_status} in PEAR." > > > > Je?li (1), to chyba lepiej brzmia?oby > > (1a) "In PEAR this package has %{_status} status." > > > > Albo mo?e (1b) "In PEAR this package is in %{_status} state." > > > > A mo?e w og?le zrezygnowa? z "In PEAR" i zostawi? > > (1c) "This package is in %{_status} state."? > > "PEAR's status of this package is: %{_status}" ? Which of the above versions of package status information (i.e. the quoted strings) sounds/looks better? Any other proposals? -- Jakub Bogusz http://cyber.cs.net.pl/~qboosh/ From adamg at biomerieux.pl Mon May 17 23:23:43 2004 From: adamg at biomerieux.pl (Adam =?iso-8859-2?Q?Go=B3=EAbiowski?=) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 23:23:43 +0200 Subject: has in PEAR status In-Reply-To: <20040517195001.GA27215@satan.blackhosts> References: <20040103192411.GB28195@satan.blackhosts> <20040103194519.GA26868@mysza.eu.org> <20040517195001.GA27215@satan.blackhosts> Message-ID: <20040517212343.GC10548@mysza.eu.org> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:50:01PM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > [moved this old thread to pld-devel-en, maybe here we could find some > consensus... as "This class has in PEAR status: %{_status}" looks > very ugly to me] > > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 08:45:19PM +0100, Adam Go??biowski wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 08:24:11PM +0100, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > > (1) "In PEAR this package has status: %{_status}." > > > (2) "In PEAR status of this package is: %{_status}." > > > (3) "This package status is %{_status} in PEAR." > > > (4) "Status of this package is %{_status} in PEAR." > > > > > > Je?li (1), to chyba lepiej brzmia?oby > > > (1a) "In PEAR this package has %{_status} status." > > > > > > Albo mo?e (1b) "In PEAR this package is in %{_status} state." > > > > > > A mo?e w og?le zrezygnowa? z "In PEAR" i zostawi? > > > (1c) "This package is in %{_status} state."? > > > > "PEAR's status of this package is: %{_status}" ? > > Which of the above versions of package status information > (i.e. the quoted strings) sounds/looks better? Any other proposals? Oh, how good you've brought that up. Few weeks ago I spoked about that with havner's girlfriend, who's studying English. As far as I remember, she chose second possibility. I will change this in weekend, unless someone objects. Also, I assume that we will introduce following change to all pecl packages: In PECL status of this package is: %{_status}. PECL split up from PEAR few months ago. -- http://www.mysza.eu.org/ | Everybody needs someone sure, someone true, PLD Linux developer | Everybody needs some solid rock, I know I do. From aredridel at nbtsc.org Tue May 18 04:18:18 2004 From: aredridel at nbtsc.org (Aredridel) Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 20:18:18 -0600 Subject: Bug in RPM perl macros? Message-ID: <20040518021818.GA6390@mail.nbtsc.org> I just installed irssi, and it fails because of a version mismatch in DynaLoader, loading the IRSSI library when loading a perl script: In irssi (0.8.9-4): /script load /usr/share/irssi/scripts/mail.pl gives: DynaLoader object version 1.04 does not match $DynaLoader::VERSION 1.05 at /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.4/i686-pld-linux-thread-multi/DynaLoader.pm line 106. Ideas? This is with perl-5.8.4-5. Ari From radek at karnet.pl Tue May 18 23:49:51 2004 From: radek at karnet.pl (Radoslaw Zielinski) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:49:51 +0200 Subject: Bug in RPM perl macros? In-Reply-To: <20040518021818.GA6390@mail.nbtsc.org> References: <20040518021818.GA6390@mail.nbtsc.org> Message-ID: <20040518214951.GA9632@bongo.whisky.rz> Aredridel [18-05-2004 04:18]: > I just installed irssi, and it fails because of a version mismatch in > DynaLoader, loading the IRSSI library when loading a perl script: [...] > DynaLoader object version 1.04 does not match $DynaLoader::VERSION 1.05 > at /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.4/i686-pld-linux-thread-multi/DynaLoader.pm > line 106. [...] > Ideas? This is with perl-5.8.4-5. I think that's because DynaLoader.a is linked statically into the binary: $ LANG=C grep -r DynaLoader *|grep -v ^perl/|grep -v PERL_LINK_FLAGS fe-none/Makefile: -Wl,-rpath,/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.4/athlon-pld-linux-thread-multi/CORE /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.4/athlon-pld-linux-thread-multi/auto/DynaLoader/DynaLoader.a -L/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.4/athlon-pld-linux-thread-multi/CORE -lperl -ldl -lm -lpthread -lcrypt \ fe-text/Makefile: -Wl,-rpath,/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.4/athlon-pld-linux-thread-multi/CORE /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.4/athlon-pld-linux-thread-multi/auto/DynaLoader/DynaLoader.a -L/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.4/athlon-pld-linux-thread-multi/CORE -lperl -ldl -lm -lpthread -lcrypt \ Binary file fe-text/irssi matches Binary file perl/.libs/perl-core.o matches Binary file perl/.libs/libperl_core_static.a matches Binary file perl/perl-core.o matches If I'm right, then any program which embeds the Perl interpreter should have Requires: perl(DynaLoader) = %(%{__perl} -MDynaLoader -le 'print $DynaLoader::VERSION') in it's *.spec... RPM perl macros have nothing to do with it, the perl.req script is just a simple tool and doesn't even aim at recognizing this sort of dependencies. -- Rados?aw Zieli?ski [ GPG key: http://radek.karnet.pl/ ] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From qboosh at pld-linux.org Mon May 24 22:49:41 2004 From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 22:49:41 +0200 Subject: has in PEAR status In-Reply-To: <20040517212343.GC10548@mysza.eu.org> References: <20040103192411.GB28195@satan.blackhosts> <20040103194519.GA26868@mysza.eu.org> <20040517195001.GA27215@satan.blackhosts> <20040517212343.GC10548@mysza.eu.org> Message-ID: <20040524204941.GA16434@satan.blackhosts> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 11:23:43PM +0200, Adam Go??biowski wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:50:01PM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote: [...] > > > > (1) "In PEAR this package has status: %{_status}." > > > > (2) "In PEAR status of this package is: %{_status}." > > > > (3) "This package status is %{_status} in PEAR." > > > > (4) "Status of this package is %{_status} in PEAR." > > Which of the above versions of package status information > > (i.e. the quoted strings) sounds/looks better? Any other proposals? > > Oh, how good you've brought that up. Few weeks ago I spoked about that > with havner's girlfriend, who's studying English. As far as I remember, > she chose second possibility. i.e. In PEAR status of this package is: %{_status}. right? > I will change this in weekend, unless someone objects. > > Also, I assume that we will introduce following change to all pecl > packages: > > In PECL status of this package is: %{_status}. > > PECL split up from PEAR few months ago. OK for me. -- Jakub Bogusz http://cyber.cs.net.pl/~qboosh/ From adamg at biomerieux.pl Tue May 25 00:14:53 2004 From: adamg at biomerieux.pl (Adam =?iso-8859-2?Q?Go=B3=EAbiowski?=) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 00:14:53 +0200 Subject: has in PEAR status In-Reply-To: <20040524204941.GA16434@satan.blackhosts> References: <20040103192411.GB28195@satan.blackhosts> <20040103194519.GA26868@mysza.eu.org> <20040517195001.GA27215@satan.blackhosts> <20040517212343.GC10548@mysza.eu.org> <20040524204941.GA16434@satan.blackhosts> Message-ID: <20040524221453.GA3369@mysza.eu.org> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:49:41PM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > Oh, how good you've brought that up. Few weeks ago I spoked about that > > with havner's girlfriend, who's studying English. As far as I remember, > > she chose second possibility. > > i.e. > > In PEAR status of this package is: %{_status}. > > right? Right... As far as I remember, of course :) > > PECL split up from PEAR few months ago. > > OK for me. Ok, it will be definitely this weekend... -- http://www.mysza.eu.org/ | Everybody needs someone sure, someone true, PLD Linux developer | Everybody needs some solid rock, I know I do. From aredridel at nbtsc.org Wed May 26 19:23:24 2004 From: aredridel at nbtsc.org (Aredridel) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:23:24 -0600 Subject: SPECS: db4.2.spec (NEW) - added In-Reply-To: <200405261835.50283.pluto@ds14.agh.edu.pl> References: <200405261835.50283.pluto@ds14.agh.edu.pl> Message-ID: <20040526172324.GA8345@mail.nbtsc.org> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 06:35:46PM +0200, Pawe?? Sikora wrote: > On Wednesday 26 of May 2004 18:04, aredridel wrote: > > Author: aredridel Date: Wed May 26 16:04:48 2004 GMT > > Module: SPECS Tag: HEAD > > ---- Log message: > > - added > > > > ---- Files affected: > > SPECS: > > db4.2.spec (NONE -> 1.1) (NEW) > (...) > > +Version: 4.2.52 > > ze tak spytam, po co to? > cos w db.spec jest nie tak? Doh. I had completely forgotten about db-*. *goes to get coffee.* Ari From ankry at green.mif.pg.gda.pl Sat May 29 19:31:14 2004 From: ankry at green.mif.pg.gda.pl (Andrzej Krzysztofowicz) Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 19:31:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: SPECS: niceshaper.spec - paszczus nigga, please use %{_initrddir} In-Reply-To: from "domelu" at May 29, 2004 09:35:34 AM Message-ID: <200405291731.i4THVEH6018117@green.mif.pg.gda.pl> domelu wrote: > +Revision 1.13 2004/05/29 09:35:29 domelu > +- paszczus nigga, please use %{_initrddir} > + Please don't unless you change macro name. Shouldn't %{_initrddir} be equal to /initrd ? -- ======================================================================= Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz ankry at mif.pg.gda.pl phone (48)(58) 347 14 61 Faculty of Applied Phys. & Math., Gdansk University of Technology