[users] BuildRequires: rpm-macros-rpmforge

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi folks!

Do I remember correctly that last time the consensus was that we
consider rpm-macros-rpmforge to be always available in the build root?

If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

[Christoph Maser]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Hi folks!
Do I remember correctly that last time the consensus was that we
consider rpm-macros-rpmforge to be always available in the build root?
If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

I'd say remove it

[Steve Huff]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

why? it does no harm, and the advantage of having it there is that when someone downloads one of our specs and tries to build it on their own system, they'll be prompted to install rpm-macros-rpmforge if it's not already present (as opposed to seeing an error about rpm macros, which may be more difficult to figure out).

-steve

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110223/eaaba397/attachment.bin

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi folks!

Do I remember correctly that last time the consensus was that we
consider rpm-macros-rpmforge to be always available in the build root?

If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

[Christoph Maser]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Hi folks!
Do I remember correctly that last time the consensus was that we
consider rpm-macros-rpmforge to be always available in the build root?
If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

I'd say remove it

[Steve Huff]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

why? it does no harm, and the advantage of having it there is that when someone downloads one of our specs and tries to build it on their own system, they'll be prompted to install rpm-macros-rpmforge if it's not already present (as opposed to seeing an error about rpm macros, which may be more difficult to figure out).

-steve

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110223/eaaba397/attachment-0001.bin

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi folks!

Do I remember correctly that last time the consensus was that we
consider rpm-macros-rpmforge to be always available in the build root?

If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

[Christoph Maser]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Hi folks!
Do I remember correctly that last time the consensus was that we
consider rpm-macros-rpmforge to be always available in the build root?
If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

I'd say remove it

[Steve Huff]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

why? it does no harm, and the advantage of having it there is that when someone downloads one of our specs and tries to build it on their own system, they'll be prompted to install rpm-macros-rpmforge if it's not already present (as opposed to seeing an error about rpm macros, which may be more difficult to figure out).

-steve

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110223/eaaba397/attachment-0002.bin

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi folks!

Do I remember correctly that last time the consensus was that we
consider rpm-macros-rpmforge to be always available in the build root?

If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

[Christoph Maser]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Hi folks!
Do I remember correctly that last time the consensus was that we
consider rpm-macros-rpmforge to be always available in the build root?
If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

I'd say remove it

[Steve Huff]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

why? it does no harm, and the advantage of having it there is that when someone downloads one of our specs and tries to build it on their own system, they'll be prompted to install rpm-macros-rpmforge if it's not already present (as opposed to seeing an error about rpm macros, which may be more difficult to figure out).

-steve

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110223/eaaba397/attachment-0003.bin

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi folks!

Do I remember correctly that last time the consensus was that we
consider rpm-macros-rpmforge to be always available in the build root?

If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

[Christoph Maser]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Hi folks!
Do I remember correctly that last time the consensus was that we
consider rpm-macros-rpmforge to be always available in the build root?
If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

I'd say remove it

[Steve Huff]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
If so, I guess we should remove it from _perl-template.spec, right?

why? it does no harm, and the advantage of having it there is that when someone downloads one of our specs and tries to build it on their own system, they'll be prompted to install rpm-macros-rpmforge if it's not already present (as opposed to seeing an error about rpm macros, which may be more difficult to figure out).

-steve

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110223/eaaba397/attachment.sig>