Ruffdogs.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Darrell,
Just getting around looking at this in about one half hour, so I may be
speaking of somthing that's already been done, but what about domain
forwarding?
http://domain1.com sends to local webserver at 192.168.1.4
http://domain2.com sends to
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 10:53:36AM -0600, John Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
BuildRequires: e-smith-devtools
Not even sure what e-smith-devtools is. I just removed the line (all
I was doing was packaging scripts), but am somewhat interested in what
it is and, if interesting, where
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 09:41:24PM -0800, Tom Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are we still using the e-smith-{package-name}-{version}.{release}.{arch}.rpm
format for naming RPM's, or should it be changed to something like
mitel-sme-{package-name}-{version}.{release}.{arch}.rpm
You are free
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 10:34:56PM -, Darrell May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
So for anyone playing along you will have to remove both old rpms and then
install the new combined rpm.
[...]
If you put in a line:
Obsoletes: e-smith-ipportfw dmc-mitel-portfowarding
RPM will do that
Gordon Rowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If you put in a line:
Obsoletes: e-smith-ipportfw dmc-mitel-portfowarding
RPM will do that work for you.
Excellent, now built into:
dmc-mitel-portforwarding-0.0.1-4.noarch.rpm
Regards,
--
Darrell May
DMC Netsourced.com
http://netsourced.com
Gordon Rowell wrote:
I tried just changing it to e-smith =5.0 and it
failed the dependancy (a --nodeps worked nicely, but that is
ugly).
The use of --nodeps implies a dependency problem :-) Seriously,
people
should be very wary of --nodeps and even more so of --force. Both
are
likely to
John Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But on that note, I am interested in some advice on the correct (or at
least lesser of evils approach) to modifying and/or extending
existing SME features in areas that are not templated. Here is what I
am considering doing:
IMHO if you have an idea for
