On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 10:45 -0500, Bradford Ritchie wrote: > If Fedora uses a different naming convention, why aren't > those names used in the FC4 files listed on sorceforge.
Because there are different people looking after these two repositories, and they've make different choices about how to package things. RedHat decided that they wanted to separate "client-side" tools from the basic SNMP agent (allow greater flexibility in what to install), and the Fedora releases have followed this convention. We decided that we wanted as few different binary packages as possible (because we're offering support for a wider variety of O/S's, and the more different bits there are for each, the more confusing it is). And we regard the basic package as comprising *both* the agent and clients, so that's what we package for *all* systems (not just RedHat-based Linux). > In other words, what use is it to have an FC4 rpm that doesn't > follow the FC4 naming convention, since it can't get (completely) > installed in the normal way. But it *should* be possible to install this in the normal way. We'd tried to mark our RPM as obsoleting both the Fedora-supplied ones - obviously we didn't get that quite right, and it's something we'll have to look into. > Maybe I'm missing something but I would assume that if somebody > bothered to build it and create the rpm, then it must be installable. These RPMs definitely *are* installable. I've installed them on my own FC4 system. Probably not as an upgrade from the FC-supplied ones, though - most of the developers probably remove the vendor supplied versions as a matter of course, since we're mostly working on cutting edge code. > I did try building everything using the tarball... is there an > advantage to building it from the srpm? If I install it from the > srpm, will yum recognize it's presence and allow it to be upgraded in > the future? The basic advantage of building from SRPM is that you end up with an RPM, that can be installed in the normal manner. This means that the RPM system knows about the software, and can update it (via yum), uninstall it cleanly, tell you what files belong to this package, etc, etc. Compiling and installing from the tarball doesn't do this - the software would be invisible to anything that *does* use the RPM mechanism (e.g. packages that depend on Net-SNMP) Actually, looking at your original report, the main problem seems to be: > Cannot open file: net-snmp-perlmods-5.3-1.fc4.i686.rpm. Skipping. That almost feels like a permission problem (or else yum can't actually find the file referred to). I know this may sound obvious, but have you checked that the RPM file is present in the right place, and readable? Particularly given that the main RPM installs correctly, I'd want to compare the two files (location, permissions, ownership, etc), and look for any differences. Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-users mailing list [email protected] Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
