Re: tlug: Perl linked against libc 5 & 6 on TL2.0J ??

["Andrew S. Howell" <andy@example.com>]

>>>>> "Rex" == Rex Walters <rex@example.com> writes:

>>>>> Andrew S. Howell writes:  (on 12 Nov 98)
    >> I wonder if anyone used it like this? Of course the first
    >> question is if RPM itself is portable...

    Rex> Yes, and yes.  Redhat for one uses it *just* like you've
    Rex> described, and RPM itself is quite portable (I've even built
    Rex> and installed it on a large NFS server platform I'm familiar
    Rex> with -- but don't tell anyone :-).

What, you mean you only have a single user license for RPM and you're
using it all over the network? Shame on you! :)

I tried building it on Solaris 2.5.1, but it needed db.h. I made a
rather lame attempt to locate a "libdb" on the web, but didn't turn up
anything. You wouldn't happen to have a URL would you?

    Rex> Regardless whether you like people publishing binary
    Rex> packages, source RPMs and spec files are a nice and formal
    Rex> way way to document exactly what you need to do to patch,
    Rex> compile, install, and configure software on your platforms.

I'm not convinced that binary packages as such are 'evil'. I think
where you get in trouble is when they are used without knowing if they
apply to your system or not. If I take a rpm for RH 4.2 and install it
on 5.2, I deserve whatever I get ( or don't get as the case may be ).

    Rex> I can't tell you how many times I've been unable to compile
    Rex> and install software that I *know* I had installed before
    Rex> (unable to remember what little trick it was that finally got
    Rex> me past the hurdle).

Arrrggg, Been there, done that. Yes, I've been bitten that way may
times a well.

    Rex> I think forcing yourself to create srpms or whatever the
    Rex> debian equivalent is called is probably an excellent
    Rex> practice.  Alas, I find I'm still too lazy most of the time
    Rex> to make an srpm and just install stuff in /usr/local.

My usual ploy with most stuff is that if all I had to do was
"configure; make; make install", then I don't bother to document it.

    Rex>   By the time it breaks I probably want to download a newer
    Rex> version anyway.

Well, I wonder to what extent the SPEC files are reusable? In other
words, would it make sense to just keep around the SPEC files, without
the source? My thinking is that one could then have semi-automated
builds, or at least capture what was needed for a particular version.

Regards,

	Andy


----------------------------------------------------------------
Next Nomikai: 20 November, 19:30   Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691
Next Technical Meeting: 12 December, 12:30 HSBC Securities Office
----------------------------------------------------------------
more info: http://tlug.linux.or.jp Sponsors: PHT, HSBC Securities