httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ondrej Sury <>
Subject Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
Date Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:25:52 GMT
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 12:10 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. said:
> > So... is it unreasonable in README.RPM to point the user to obtain the
> > current httpd.spec/ from /dist/httpd/httpd-2.0.55-rpm-src.tar.gz
> > which would be grabbed from svn httpd/package/rpm/, and drop it into the
> > unpacked httpd-2.0.55 source tarball, in order to package?
> Secondly the httpd.spec file contains version specific information (the
> version number, the MMN, etc) that would be both a serious pain to
> maintain separately by a packager and a serious pain to tie up with the
> required source by a person building an RPM.

Sorry, but in DEB world, this is pretty normal to have separate upstream
source and debian/ subdirectory and it's not serious pain at all.
Upstream and packagers work in clearly separated and in my view it's
good.  But my view can be twisted since there are propably a bit
different *standards* how is package provided in DEB and RPM world, ie.
debianers are not used to compile packages themselves a lot, they use
packages provided by their distribution.

P.S.: Please, keep it cool and don't flame.
Ondrej Sury <>

View raw message