Colm MacCarthaigh said: > 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?
The release tarball should in itself be buildable, yes. Trouble is I sometime don't get to test the RPM build on time, and the release goes out the door with a broken spec file :( > What is the number of commands it takes to turn an SRPM into a binary > .rpm ? rpmbuild --rebuild httpd-2.0.55-1.src.rpm > 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. We currently have build scripts/spec file for RPM and for Solais PKG, is it difficult to get httpd to be built as a .deb "out the box"? I know precious little about .deb packaging. > 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 :-) RPM has features that make it easy to go from tarball to RPM in a single step, and follows the principle of least astonishment :) Regards, Graham --
