also sprach danb35:
> Peter Green wrote:
>
> > Okay, this is a *really* *sick* suggestion, but would providing binary
> > patches violate the djb license? IOW, qmail-1.03-1.i386.rpm would be the
> > qmail package (as described at <http://cr.yp.to/qmail/var-qmail.html>),
> > while qmail-patches-0.01-1.i386.rpm would be a big patchfile that would
> > *binary* patch the appropriate programs.
>
> This might be even worse, but still a thought: Install source RPMS,
> patch them, build and install them, then remove the development tools as
> part of the post-install script. This would also work for things (like
> crypto) where distribution seems to be limited to the source, rather
> than binaries. Probably an evil hack, but it should be do-able...
Good thought. I wanted to avoid installing the devel tools altogether (my
way only requires patch). However, installing them, using them, and
uninstalling them, while adding significant complexity, adds significant
flexibility as well. I like.
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
I was trying to manipulate the linux cookies using python.
The command has the wrong syntax for writing my results
back to a file. The error message was rather fitting ;)
>>> posix.system('cat' + fortlist + '> pythoncookie')
sh: catI: command not found
sh: syntax error near unexpected token `full...).'
sh: -c: line 5: `driver will be redirected to /dev/null, oh no, it's full...).'
Sure raised a laugh..
(Quess what, the first cookie about the cookie list. Sent by Jeppe Sigbrandt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.)
