On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 13:29 -0400, John Ellson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 13:06 -0400, John Ellson wrote:
>
>
>>Oliver Falk wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 08/29/2005 03:16 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 07:33 -0400, Oliver Falk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Author: oliver
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Index: graphviz.spec
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>+BuildRequires: /bin/ksh bison m4 flex tcl-devel >= 8.3
>>>>>tk-devel swig
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>What's the reason for BR'ing /bin/ksh?
>>>>
>>>>I can't imagine a single reason for doing so under Linux.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I took that from the specfile that comes with graphviz and didn't
>>>think to much about it - it also was there since I took over
>>>graphviz... Maybe John knows why!?
>>Tritely, because ksh was invented here
>> and its too hard convincing people here to use
>>bash. As I recall, iffe depends on it.
>>
>>
>Well, I'd suggest you to extend your configure script to detect a
>suitable shell (I guess you actually are looking for shell supporting
>for some features which were missing in the original Bourne shell 10
>years+ ago),
>or FE should simply sed the /bin/ksh to /bin/bash or even /bin/sh from
>the sources inside of the rpm spec.
Is this a blocker for this release?
Nope, BR'ing ksh just means unnecessarily pulling in a package into the
build process which probably can easily be avoided.
To be honest I'm feeeling some burnout and this is not the
technical
issue that I want to work on....
Pardon, but what's so complicated about adding
a one line sed to an
rpm.spec?
Ralf