I think it would be a good idea that binary packages (built with rpm) to
automagically include the spec file (and to place it under
/usr/doc/package.../). This is helpfull in 2 situations:
- as an inspiration for new package builders
- usually, packages doesn't have a README.redhat, they have t
John Summerfield wrote:
>
> > John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Just what's in a src.rpm that's so useful that is NOT in the spec file?
> >
> > Patches?
>
> You don't need them to see how it was built;-) Well, not unless it was
> configured by patching, and I HAVE seen that
>
> >[summer@emu summer]$ rpm -qif /usr/bin/rpmbuilder
> >Name: rpmbuilder Relocations: /usr
> >Version : 0.5 Vendor: (none)
> >Release : 2mdk Build Date: Sat May 13 08:52:19
> >2000
> >Install date: Tue J
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
>> >Mike
>> >Just what's in a src.rpm that's so useful that is NOT in the spec file?
>>
>> Umm... the source code? Depends on what you mean by "useful" I
>
>Of course, if you want the source get the src.rpm.
Yes, but often it is also needed to under
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
>
>
> >Mike
> >Just what's in a src.rpm that's so useful that is NOT in the spec file?
>
> Umm... the source code? Depends on what you mean by "useful" I
Of course, if you want the source get the src.rpm.
>
> 1) We might be able to build a new
> John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Just what's in a src.rpm that's so useful that is NOT in the spec file?
>
> Patches?
You don't need them to see how it was built;-) Well, not unless it was
configured by patching, and I HAVE seen that done.
Anything else?
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
>> 1 in 10 users that look at 1-5 out of the 2000 .spec files
>> that would be installed, would then have to get some src.rpm code
>> likely to get going anyway. After they've learned what they
>> could from the spec file (about 15 seconds worth)
John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just what's in a src.rpm that's so useful that is NOT in the spec file?
Patches?
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors!
86 days, 2 hours, 26 minutes, 25 seconds till we run away.
Be security conscious -- National defense is
>
> Even if the .spec files _were_ installed with every package, the
> 1 in 10 users that look at 1-5 out of the 2000 .spec files
> that would be installed, would then have to get some src.rpm code
> likely to get going anyway. After they've learned what they
> could from the spec file (abo
> > Or better yet, take all the .spec's and put them in one big
> > tarball to download, or heck - even an RPM.
> >
> > rpm -ivh specs-6.2.i386.rpm
> very good ideea!
>
Won't tell you how Henri G built tomcat at Falsehope.
___
Redhat-devel-list
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Levente Farkas wrote:
>> >> >I think it would be a good idea that binary packages (built with rpm) to
>> >> >automagically include the spec file (and to place it under
>> >> >/usr/doc/package.../). This is helpfull in 2 situations:
>> >> > - as an inspiration for new package
"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
>
> >> >I think it would be a good idea that binary packages (built with rpm) to
> >> >automagically include the spec file (and to place it under
> >> >/usr/doc/package.../). This is helpfull in 2 situations:
> >> > - as an
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
>> >I think it would be a good idea that binary packages (built with rpm) to
>> >automagically include the spec file (and to place it under
>> >/usr/doc/package.../). This is helpfull in 2 situations:
>> > - as an inspiration for new package builders
>
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Viorel Anghel wrote:
>
> >I think it would be a good idea that binary packages (built with rpm) to
> >automagically include the spec file (and to place it under
> >/usr/doc/package.../). This is helpfull in 2 situations:
> > - as an inspiration for new package builders
>
>
Frank Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Speaking of RPMs I was wondering how people go about
> creating RPMs for complicated packages such as the
> kernel
You start out by installing the SRPM for a similarly large and complex
package. It gives lots of ideas on how to structure things.
Using a
>
> Of course one can use SRPMS packages, but that is
> not always handy.
>
Speaking of RPMs I was wondering how people go about
creating RPMs for complicated packages such as the
kernel, or mysql or something that installs a load of
files. I am pretty new to making RPMs and therefore
find
Ok, the discussion was interesting, I hope you understand why some people
want an easy way to access specs. I understand why other people don't want
them.
BUT, I have the following ideea:
- at packaging, rpm should include in binary package the spec somwhere in
the HEADER
- that can be queried
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 07:17:30AM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
[...]
> The installation of binary application packages is for the
> purpose of running software, documenting how to use that
> software, and it's configuration files.
it seems like you ignore the most important point from my post:
s
"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
> I think I see the problem more properly now. You want the .spec
> file from a particular .src.rpm package, and you don't want to
> have to download that entire package. That makes sense. Putting
> it in the binary RPMS for your installed programs is NOT the
> correct s
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Levente Farkas wrote:
>> >I think it would be a good idea that binary packages (built with rpm) to
>> >automagically include the spec file (and to place it under
>> >/usr/doc/package.../). This is helpfull in 2 situations:
>> > - as an inspiration for new package builders
>>
"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Viorel Anghel wrote:
>
> >I think it would be a good idea that binary packages (built with rpm) to
> >automagically include the spec file (and to place it under
> >/usr/doc/package.../). This is helpfull in 2 situations:
> > - as an inspiration fo
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Viorel Anghel wrote:
>I think it would be a good idea that binary packages (built with rpm) to
>automagically include the spec file (and to place it under
>/usr/doc/package.../). This is helpfull in 2 situations:
> - as an inspiration for new package builders
I disagree. It
I think it would be a good idea that binary packages (built with rpm) to
automagically include the spec file (and to place it under
/usr/doc/package.../). This is helpfull in 2 situations:
- as an inspiration for new package builders
- usually, packages doesn't have a README.redhat, they have th
23 matches
Mail list logo
