Hi Ralf On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 01:16, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2003, Conrad Steenberg wrote: > > > The current openpkg (Sept 4) bootstrap package is shipped without > > sufficient libraries to enable linking against librpm*.a. The first > > patch rectifies this by also installing libbeecrypt.a and beecrypt.h. > > Ops, you're right. Perhaps we even should provide a rpm-config script > because we also use non-standard library names? I've now done this > starting with openpkg-20030907-20030907. Try to use this to avoid > having to know the right -lrpmXXX and their order, etc. > > > The second patch expands the os compatibility list by including entries > > for redhat6.x and 7.x. It also adds a generic OS called 'anyos' similar > > to to 'noarch' architecture. And yes, I know that the openpkg > > maintainers feel that I'm 'confused' for needing this. But for > > consistency with the architecture specification this needs to be done > > (or the noarch architecture removed if you're serious about ignoring any > > binary packages as you state in the FAQ item added for my benefit ;-). > > The "anyos" is ok, I think. The additional RedHat 6 compat... hmmm.. In > general I would like to completely remove the whole compat stuff. But > let's leave it for now.
Yes, going back to Redhat 6 is insane, but we have some sites that run things like particle detectors where having a stable system is more important than having the latest and greatest. Luckily most of these sites are considering a move to Redhat 7 in the next year... or two ;-) Btw, for Linux an OS specification based on the C library version might actually be more appropriate, although the kernel certianly plays a role too. For me the move to specifying a particular distribution (redhat/suse) is actually a step backwards since Openpkg eliminates the differences between distributions... But on reflection, this whole paragraph just underscores your point about the difficulty in dealing with binary packages :-( > > > Ps. All of this is to allow a port of the Yum > > (http://linux.duke.edu/projects/yum/) package installer in case someone > > else is interested. > > That would be cool. I actually would like to see the following > three(!) additional OpenPKG packages available to OpenPKG users: > > "apt" ...... APT (http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/) > "poldek" ... Poldek (http://team.pld.org.pl/~mis/poldek/) > "yum" ...... Yum (http://www.dulug.duke.edu/yum/) Hmmm, poldek I don't know of. I put a port of apt on the openpkg ftp server in incoming a while ago, but it seems to have vanished. It was a trivial port though. See my previous message for the yum port/fork. Cheers! Conrad > > Anybody wants to contribute them? ;-) > > Ralf S. Engelschall > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.engelschall.com > > ______________________________________________________________________ > The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org > Developer Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Conrad Steenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ______________________________________________________________________ The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org Developer Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
