On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 07:16:17AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> > --=_434647510==_.ALT
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> >
> >
> > >I unpack, hack fix, build in my work tree. When that all works I diff that
> > >with the base tree and it to
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 07:16:17AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> According to the docs, I am supposed to be able to build binaries for RHL
> 5.2 systems on my RHL 6.0 system if I install the compatibility libraries
> (which I have). I see not a whisper of how I do it; I'd have thought the
>
> --=_434647510==_.ALT
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>
> >I unpack, hack fix, build in my work tree. When that all works I diff that
> >with the base tree and it to the spec file and try the rpm build
> >
> > Along these lines...am I
I unpack, hack fix, build in my
work tree. When that all works I diff that
with the base tree and it to the spec file and try the rpm build
Along
these lines...am I the only person to lose sleep over gcc upgrades and a
failure to compile executables after upgrading from 5.2 to 6.0 and
pat
> I imagine RH developers only try to build rpms when they have a successful
> build.
I unpack, hack fix, build in my work tree. When that all works I diff that
with the base tree and it to the spec file and try the rpm build
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/nul
>
> rpm --rebuild file.src.rpm
> Bugs show up.
> Fix them.
> rpm -bi SPECS/file.spec
That unpacks the source and applies patches
>
> >From there I cannot find a way forward, since no .i386.rpm file is
> created. The only thing to do is to manually issue the 'make install'
> command from the bu
