On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:49:11AM +0100, Stuart Children wrote: > > Definitely agreed. The spec file in CVS, and so in RPMs offered for > download, should be as distro agnostic as possible. Where there are > differences it should default to anything specified in the LSB, or > otherwise to the choice made by most distros. It should be made clear to > users that, as Michael points out, the SRPMs may be recompiled on any > rpm based distro, and any binary RPMs that are provided should clearly > be labelled as to what distro they were built on (which is the case).
Actually, the LSB defines more than a standard set of paths. It has a build framework that provides a set of base libraries that are portable to any LSB compliant system. It then statically links in any libs not part of the LSB. This leads to bulky executables, but at least we know they will work for most people. Although this might be an issue with imlib2 and it's modules. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Nathan Ingersoll \\ Computer Systems & Network Coordinator | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ http://www.ruralcenter.org | | http://ningerso.atmos.org/ \\ Rural Health Resource Center | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
