<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/08/2014 06:57 AM, Matěj Cepl
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:slrnm8b4gr.t14.mcepl@mitmanek.ceplovi.cz"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">xiphos.spec file is broken on RHEL-7 in many ways</pre>
</blockquote>
That's ... interesting, because my .spec is copied with a few mods
to identify it as being for personal use from the one Greg uses for
regular Fedora builds. It is used only for my personal builds that
go into Testing, that is, from .spec %description:<br>
<br>
>> This build produced by Xiphos development; not from
official Fedora repo.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:slrnm8b4gr.t14.mcepl@mitmanek.ceplovi.cz"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I have rather build it in COPR </pre>
</blockquote>
Never heard of that before. I looked, where it says<br>
<br>
>> Description not filled in by author<br>
<br>
which is simply wrong, the description is (largely) as it has been
for years, though I'm pushing to drop the "formerly known as
GnomeSword" tag because it's been 6 years after all.<br>
<br>
>> Instructions not filled in by author.<br>
<br>
I don't even know what that means.<br>
<br>
I don't understand why you're pushing this into publicly visible
repos at this point, because I said pretty clearly that problems
remain to be shaken out, and in fact I generated what's at the SF
files' Testing link 3 times yesterday (now 3.9.3; the version rev
rate will be high as shake-out continues) as bugs were chased down.
Once the shake-out is complete, the real release of 4.0 will be let
loose. Until then, it's for testing by people who know what they're
doing.<br>
</body>
</html>