Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Fedora is getting along fine without putting libraries in separate
> subpackages.
The -devel split is not really about putting headers somewhere else to save
space, it's really about libraries.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lf
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 04/30/08 01:11 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Hopefully, everything will be simply commented out. I'd like to
>> leave any unused, but still in the book, text to remain there until
>> we cut this release. That way the source is a bit more preserved,
>> even though it
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> I certainly agree that it's best to handle situations like that, but
> does RPM even support it? I.e., if I split off a libssl subpackage
> that just has libssl.so.0.9.8, would RPM even allow me to install a
> newer version of libssl in parallel without --force or something?
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > I agree that there are major advantages to splitting the libraries out
> > of the package, but why can't you just update the whole openssl
> > package to get the library update? In fact,
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> Glibc is not the best example for discussion. I requested such sample page
>> for
>> bash, not for glibc, for a reason: bash needs a specific patch in the RPM
>> case,
>> and I don't see the way to force such PM-specific instructions in t
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> I agree that there are major advantages to splitting the libraries out
> of the package, but why can't you just update the whole openssl
> package to get the library update? In fact, the -devel split you're
> talking about where the bare .so links and the headers are in a
> s
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > So I finally got a free evening and the energy to sit down and get
> > conceptual. This is the result:
> > http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/php-test/
> >
> > Be
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> That's awesome! My only concern with the multiple paths is with
> duplicating changes. Like, you found a typo in one of the commands and
> you have to change it in 4 spots. But I'd take that tradeoff here for
> the gain in coolness. :)
Well, that's part of the 'coolness'. Th
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Jeremy Huntwork
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So I finally got a free evening and the energy to sit down and get
> conceptual. This is the result:
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/php-test/
That's awesome! My only concern with the multiple pat
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/php-test/
>
> IMHO, too much state is kept in the PHP session. This may lead to bugs if a
> reader first generates one book and then the other variant, differing in the
> amount of required informa
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Glibc is not the best example for discussion. I requested such sample page
> for
> bash, not for glibc, for a reason: bash needs a specific patch in the RPM
> case,
> and I don't see the way to force such PM-specific instructions in the current
> framework.
I ex
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/php-test/
IMHO, too much state is kept in the PHP session. This may lead to bugs if a
reader first generates one book and then the other variant, differing in the
amount of required information. Something may leak between the visit
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So I finally got a free evening and the energy to sit down and get
> conceptual. This is the result:
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/php-test/
>
> Before replying about all that you see is wrong with it ;) keep the
> following in mind:
>
> This is
13 matches
Mail list logo
