----- "Josef Skladanka" jskladan@redhat.com wrote:
Hello,
Although I do not really understand all the spec files & makefile magic,
Me neither.
it seems OK to me, and I do completely support the idea of not packaging the israwhide broken.
I'm another big supporter :)
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Laska" jlaska@redhat.com
Comments/concerns?
kparal@kparal:/home/autoqa (master)$ git am < patch Applying: Drop israwhidebroken sub-package error: patch failed: Makefile:32 error: Makefile: patch does not apply Patch failed at 0001 Drop israwhidebroken sub-package
Maybe the patch was based upon a different version of Makefile (than the one currently in master)?
I think we should also ensure that the latest code (source code and spec file/Makefile stuff) is available in the 'israwhidebroken' branch, so we can easily revive this stuff if needed without searching in git history too much. (I just tried it, it merges cleanly with master, so no problem there).
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 04:09 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
----- "Josef Skladanka" jskladan@redhat.com wrote:
Hello,
Although I do not really understand all the spec files & makefile magic,
Me neither.
it seems OK to me, and I do completely support the idea of not packaging the israwhide broken.
I'm another big supporter :)
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Laska" jlaska@redhat.com
Comments/concerns?
kparal@kparal:/home/autoqa (master)$ git am < patch Applying: Drop israwhidebroken sub-package error: patch failed: Makefile:32 error: Makefile: patch does not apply Patch failed at 0001 Drop israwhidebroken sub-package
Maybe the patch was based upon a different version of Makefile (than the one currently in master)?
Oh oops, I thought I applied it against master, but I may have goofed. I'll inspect later today.
I think we should also ensure that the latest code (source code and spec file/Makefile stuff) is available in the 'israwhidebroken' branch, so we can easily revive this stuff if needed without searching in git history too much. (I just tried it, it merges cleanly with master, so no problem there).
That's a good idea. Thanks for pulling that into the other branch.
Thanks, James
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 10:00 -0500, James Laska wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 04:09 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
----- "Josef Skladanka" jskladan@redhat.com wrote:
Hello,
Although I do not really understand all the spec files & makefile magic,
Me neither.
it seems OK to me, and I do completely support the idea of not packaging the israwhide broken.
I'm another big supporter :)
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Laska" jlaska@redhat.com
Comments/concerns?
kparal@kparal:/home/autoqa (master)$ git am < patch Applying: Drop israwhidebroken sub-package error: patch failed: Makefile:32 error: Makefile: patch does not apply Patch failed at 0001 Drop israwhidebroken sub-package
Maybe the patch was based upon a different version of Makefile (than the one currently in master)?
Oh oops, I thought I applied it against master, but I may have goofed. I'll inspect later today.
Not sure why it wouldn't apply cleanly, I don't think my patch accommodated for recent changes to autoqa.conf for ticket#205? I've adjusted the patch and pushed into master.
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=autoqa.git;a=commit;h=3d1edc695b2e63054ac...
Thanks, James
autoqa-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org