On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 07:16:17AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> > --=_434647510==_.ALT
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> >
> >
> > >I unpack, hack fix, build in my work tree. When that all works I diff that
> > >with the base tree and it to
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 07:16:17AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> According to the docs, I am supposed to be able to build binaries for RHL
> 5.2 systems on my RHL 6.0 system if I install the compatibility libraries
> (which I have). I see not a whisper of how I do it; I'd have thought the
>
> --=_434647510==_.ALT
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>
> >I unpack, hack fix, build in my work tree. When that all works I diff that
> >with the base tree and it to the spec file and try the rpm build
> >
> > Along these lines...am I
I unpack, hack fix, build in my
work tree. When that all works I diff that
with the base tree and it to the spec file and try the rpm build
Along
these lines...am I the only person to lose sleep over gcc upgrades and a
failure to compile executables after upgrading from 5.2 to 6.0 and
pat
> I imagine RH developers only try to build rpms when they have a successful
> build.
I unpack, hack fix, build in my work tree. When that all works I diff that
with the base tree and it to the spec file and try the rpm build
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/nul
>
> rpm --rebuild file.src.rpm
> Bugs show up.
> Fix them.
> rpm -bi SPECS/file.spec
That unpacks the source and applies patches
>
> >From there I cannot find a way forward, since no .i386.rpm file is
> created. The only thing to do is to manually issue the 'make install'
> command from the bu
Trying the development list.
In the rebuilding phase of packages from .src.rpm sometimes small bugs
show up, that are easily fixed by small changes to the source
files. Going from there to the %install phase can be done with the
--short-circuit switch, i.e.
rpm --rebuild file.src.rpm
Bugs sho
