RE: Latest RPMs for mod_ssl

2001-03-29 Thread John . Airey
ITCSD, Royal National Institute for the Blind, Bakewell Road, Peterborough PE2 6XU, Tel.: +44 (0) 1733 375299 Fax: +44 (0) 1733 370848 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: ModSSL user [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 29 March 2001 14:57 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subj

RE: Latest RPMs for mod_ssl

2001-03-29 Thread ModSSL user
>Thanks for doing this guys. Could I be a little pedantic and suggest that >the manual should probably be a "noarch.rpm" rather than a "i386.rpm"? >AFAIK the manual is processor independent A known feature (limitation) of rpm. You couldn't generate in the same .spec a noarch RPM and arch (ex: i

RE: Latest RPMs for mod_ssl

2001-03-07 Thread Michael E. Lewis
Thanks for doing this guys. Could I be a little pedantic and suggest that the manual should probably be a "noarch.rpm" rather than a "i386.rpm"? AFAIK the manual is processor independent. - John Airey Internet Systems Support Officer, ITCSD, Royal National Institute for the Blind, Bakewell Road,

RE: Latest RPMs for mod_ssl

2001-03-07 Thread John . Airey
Thanks for doing this guys. Could I be a little pedantic and suggest that the manual should probably be a "noarch.rpm" rather than a "i386.rpm"? AFAIK the manual is processor independent. - John Airey Internet Systems Support Officer, ITCSD, Royal National Institute for the Blind, Bakewell Road,