Description of problem:
Does rpm-spec-mode work for you? I'm using current emacs devel spec file, but
with emacs cvs source. Using \c-c \c-b a (build all) gives nasty error.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
Some commands including 'C-c C-b i' and 'C-c C-b p' works fine by
applying patch of bugzilla #227418.
But 'C-e C-e' does not work with following message.
Invalid function: ignore-errors
That is odd since, AFAICT, ignore-errors is autoloaded from cl-macs.
(And, if not, there's a compatibility defmacro in rpm-spec-mode.el.)
Maybe try (require 'cl-macs).
Created attachment 191641 [details]
rpm-spec-mode as a real compilation mode
I've been working on changing rpm-spec-mode to use a real compilation mode. I
think this is a better way to fix the problem than to patch up the existing,
rather kludgey version. Compare, for example, grep.el.
I just noticed this too after upgrading the latest emacs package for F7. :-(
Re-bytecompiling rpm-spec-mode.el by hand seems to fix the problem.
Not sure why it is broken or if rpm-spec-mode.el should require cl-macs at
Ah I see there is bug 306841 for ignore-errors.
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created an attachment (id=191641) 
> rpm-spec-mode as a real compilation mode
Note: I had to add "(require 'compile)" at the beginning of the file. Without
it, `define-compilation-mode was not known by Emacs.
I am look forward to see that file in Fedora...
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 227418 ***
Created attachment 271411 [details]
rpm-spec-mode using a real compilation mode
Here's a first cut at an rpm-spec-mode that uses a real compilation mode. Give
it a try and report any bugs.
One thing that I know work is signing rpms automagically after build.
Tested once.(In reply to comment #9)
> Created an attachment (id=271411) 
> rpm-spec-mode using a real compilation mode
> Here's a first cut at an rpm-spec-mode that uses a real compilation mode.
> it a try and report any bugs.
Tested once. Works fine. I have added it to my load path, and will test
RPM signing does *not* work.
(In reply to comment #10)
> RPM signing does *not* work.
Yes, that was what I meant to say in my previous, mangled comment.
Once we've worked out all the bugs and have all the functionality back, I want
to push this change upstream. It seems logical to me that rpm building should
be done in a compilation buffer.