Fred K Ollinger on Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:39:04 -0500 |
> I'm not sure that I understand this. You're not permitted to use the > source, but if someone else packages the source into an rpm for you, > then it's ok? Yes b/c then we can deploy the rpm much faster, plus get upgrades against version 3.2, only. If an upgrade for 3.1 comes out, it would over write our source, but if we use version 3.2, then it will not. Basically, for all the reasons that people use packages. > I'm neither a UNIX guru nor an IT professional, but this does not > make sense to me. Unless it's that they want the rpm directly from > Red Hat for security/stability reasons... LOL. You think that I trust a binary only rpm from RedHat Inc. more than I trust the source from FSF that I can read, which RedHat downloaded from the same FSF and compiled? That's really funny. No, I don't think that stamping RedHat onto something magically makes it better. :) > Question for the list: how much work (hours) would it likely be for a > competent person to take the source and make an rpm for it? As long as it takes me to do it. Incidentally, it seems almost as if one needs to have compiled and installed gcc-3.2 on a rh7.2 machine all ready to create the rpm. Also, the stupid src-rpm is asking for gnat-gcc (ada) as a dependency. We don't use ada nor do we intend to ever use it. We don't need that part of the package. Anyway, I think I have convinced the developer to try out the compiled-from-source version. I have been using gcc3.2 (from source) for months to compile apache and all the apache add-ons (php) and it has been working great. Of course, w/ debian hear, I could just apt-get install gcc-3.2 from sid... :) Fred Ollinger _________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|