Re: libc5 builds

[jfm2@club-internet.fr]

> 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.