httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Graham Leggett" <minf...@sharp.fm>
Subject Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
Date Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:22:30 GMT
Colm MacCarthaigh said:

> I see people downloading them a fair ammount ( > 400 per day, which is
> actually quite a lot for the binaries section), and I don't see why
> these would discontinue. So, would it be so bad a thing if the release
> tarball wasn't itself buildable?

The release tarball should in itself be buildable, yes. Trouble is I
sometime don't get to test the RPM build on time, and the release goes out
the door with a broken spec file :(

> What is the number of commands it takes to turn an SRPM into a binary
> .rpm ?

rpmbuild --rebuild httpd-2.0.55-1.src.rpm

> I deploy a locally built .deb, and that's much more work, so building
> an rpm locally might be a lot more common than I suspect.

We currently have build scripts/spec file for RPM and for Solais PKG, is
it difficult to get httpd to be built as a .deb "out the box"? I know
precious little about .deb packaging.

> Well to be honest, I'm kind of confused as to why the source tarball
> should be doing any of the packager's work, but I guess that's a
> different argument :-)

RPM has features that make it easy to go from tarball to RPM in a single
step, and follows the principle of least astonishment :)

Regards,
Graham
--


Mime
View raw message