On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 01:34:16PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote: > We provide SRPMs for building, which contain "fixed" httpd.spec files.
I see people downloading them a fair ammount ( > 400 per day, which is actually quite a lot for the binaries section), and I don't see why these would discontinue. So, would it be so bad a thing if the release tarball wasn't itself buildable? What is the number of commands it takes to turn an SRPM into a binary .rpm ? > Either that or the i386 builds work as is for people on i386 platforms. I > personally deploy from a locally built SRPM, but that's me. I deploy a locally built .deb, and that's much more work, so building an rpm locally might be a lot more common than I suspect. > Ideally the rpm builds should be continuously integrated using something > like gump, so we catch the problem as it happens, rather than after > release. +1 > > I don't think having to un-tar a tarball, and mv a file in place is that > > big an imposition on a packager. > > Anything that's non obvious or non standard is definitely an imposition on > a packager. Don't make the packager do something that can be (and already > is) easily automated :) Well to be honest, I'm kind of confused as to why the source tarball should be doing any of the packager's work, but I guess that's a different argument :-) -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
