This is likely a popular thread (if I'm not mistaken ;-).
Permitting rpmbuild to produce noarch sub-packages is mostly as simple
as changing the arch argument to headerAddEntry() in build/
parseSpec.c:612
(void) headerAddEntry(pkg-header, RPMTAG_ARCH,
RPM_STRING_TYPE,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The LSB packaging cabal has decided that what 3rd party ISV's really
want is the ability to run their own installers on rpm managed
systems.
jeez, you always have to put things in such positive terms,
doncha? the LSB packaging people are just responding to
what
On Jun 14, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The LSB packaging cabal has decided that what 3rd party ISV's really
want is the ability to run their own installers on rpm managed
systems.
jeez, you always have to put things in such positive terms,
doncha?
Development on rpm cvs HEAD is well under way. I can almost
see what I was working on before rpm5.org setup distracted me.
Note: For those who believe that rpm should not automatically import
pubkeys, disable (by commenting out or setting to %{nil}) these two
macros
and stop reading now:
On Jun 14, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
Not likely. InstallShield probably has a good 90+% of the ISV
installer market, and they have supported RPM since 2004.
InstallShield supports RPM, but many ISVs don't use that support
because the software in question is also released
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
Do we really need the RPC functionality of Berkele-DB in RPM?
I'd like to keep, if for no other reason, that sunrpc - rpmdb is
an alternative (and reliable) means to access an off-platform
