[omniORB] omniORB 4.1.5?

[Dirk O. Kaar]

On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 08:44 -0800, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > Yes, please send the spec files. I don't know whether we particularly
> > need to keep the _new versions as well. Dirk O. Kaar gave me them.
> > What's the situation there, Dirk?
> We do not need to keep the *_new.spec files, because I've folded the 
> concepts into the spec file I'll send along asap. Many of the changes 
> were done independently by Steffan N. and myself at about the same time 
> Dirk was working on these other versions. I've built and tested the 
> merged RPMs on one machine and will build on an x86_64 box this morning.
> > I don't have any great interest in the spec files, and they're generally
> > more of a problem than anything else, because I tend to forget to keep
> > them up to date. Do we even need them in the distribution at all?
> Yes, having a baseline version in the code repository is a good idea 
> imho. But if there are issues with the RPMs on particular distros those 
> can be fixed on the fly and the changes merged back in at our convenience.
> 
>                                - Tom

I obviously don't know yet what the new spec files from Steffan and
Thomas look like. Do you know about the packages I build in the openSUSE
build service? As of this moment, my spec files are successfully
building Fedora 13, RHEL 5, SLE 11 SP1, openSUSE 11.1 - 11.3, all both
i586 and x86_64 architectures, for omniORB, omniORBpy, and omniEvents.
Obviously I like the package granularity I've implemented. That said,
there is room for improvement that I already know about, and there are
probably even more improvements possible, so I am quite interested I
seeing the "other" new RPM spec files.

One small remark on the side, I have noticed long ago that the openSUSE
education project is using non-modular RPM binary packages, but I never
felt I had enough time to talk to them about the other RPM specs. Maybe
if someone from that team is reading this, we can discuss a merging of
ideas?

-Dirk