[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libc5 builds
> On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> > Most of them tried to write all over my system, which really bothers
> > me (qmail even tried to modify my /etc/passwd -- that is *really* evil
> > of it) because an srpm build should be self-contained. Somebody should
> None of the ones I put together do this. If necessary, I install into a
> test directory and re-write an install script manually to avoid this kind
> of thing ...
I am the guilty. I didn't pay attention to the builder problem only
the user problem. I routinely do an "rpm -U package_built" and then an
rpm -e of it. This removes the damage from the building.
> > fix that -- where did these srpm's come from? They are not as well put
> > together as the ones at redhat's site. But I've said that already.
> they are usually built by us or taken from Redhat's site. The src rpm has
> the name of the packager usually. If the packager is not myself or
> jfm, the rpm is probably from Redhat contrib. I am considering rebuilding
> some of the ones that are lacking things that I'd like (buildroot,
> relocatability, certain manual dependencies)
> Maybe some of
> the src rpms have problems, but once built, the binaries for the beginner
> will work much more smoothly. The ones at Redhat's site really leave a lot
> for the beginner to do and do not meet standards we have set (starting
> daemons, running type1isnt on installation, including wmconfig files, etc)
That is the idea.
Jean Francois Martinez
The worthy man is the one who would drink muddy water if such were the
water of truth.