Hi, sorry. Small correction: "ROOT is shipped with binaries for ~10 different compilers" should be read as "ROOT for _linux_ is shipped with binaries for ~10 different compilers" Regards. Valeriy > Hi Justin, > just a question: "RPM for which compiler?" > ROOT is shipped with binaries for ~10 different compilers > (in sense gcc 3.2.2 is different from gcc 3.2). > So, to be consistent that will require ~10 different ROOT RPMs > > Regards. Valeriy > > ++ > ROOT build from the source options include "make rpm". Try this one. > > > I was aiming today to set up root on my box from rpms, meaning I wanted to > > add a small CVS update script to cron's list of duties which would update > > the source tree and from that precipitate the corresponding binary rpm's > > and rpm -U them into the system filesystem tree, seeing that it is wise to > > defer such housekeeping to adept rpm, but during the first rpmbuild rpm > > found some dependency error. I don't remember what it was. > > > > But, I do have a point (finally) and a corollary. My point is is the rpm > > stuff in ROOT important enough to be actively tested and maintained, > > perhaps even supplying rpm'd builds along with each release? The > > corollary is that building root_v10.01 with the provided spec failed for > > me. > > > > [justin@archimedes justin]$ uname -a > > Linux archimedes.adam-ondi-ahman 2.4.22-1.2129.nptlcustom #3 Tue Dec 2 01:07:47 MST 2003 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux > > > > Were I more rpm savvy I would offer to maintain ROOT's rpm functionality > > myself or point to someone who could and would because rpm remembers what > > it has done, when I always don't, and other reasons rpms supersede (at > > least prebuilt) tar balls I shall not enumerate here. > > > > > > Justin > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:50:17 MET