Thanks Valeri and Christian. I forgot, duh, how ROOT is supported on so many flavors and that ./configure && make has always worked out of the box at least on my systems. Bravo the ROOT team. On 15 Dec 2003, Christian Holm Christensen wrote: > The package building stuff (for both Red Hat and Debian GNU/Linux) is > somewhat out of date. It's one (of many) of my projects to freshen that > up a bit. I've already sent some patches to Fons, that'll make the > packaging work smoother. These patches hasn't been merged upstream yet, > which is a bit of a show stopper for the rest of the changes. Great. I'm gald you're maintaining the .deb and .rpm packaging. It's useful stuff. > > [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. > > Active testers are ofcourse always welcome. Especially if you can > provide detailed information (not just the output of `uname -a` - it > doesn't really tell me anything but your kernel version and CPU type - > pretty useless when you're dealing with something like building RPM or > Debian packages). I had searched once for a command-line utility that could browse through the wealth of system specifications and query such nominative information as you imply (among the output of rpm's commands themselves), but I was delighted to find uname because it gave me something. Shucks. > I agree that it would be a good idea if the ROOT team could build RPMs > and Debian packages as part of their release cycle. Valeri has a point > in saying that there are a lot of compilers available for GNU/Linux. > Therefor, I'd suggest that the ROOT team got a set of machines running > off the shelves version of > > Disribution Status Version | CPU > -----------------+----------+---------+------- > Red Hat | `stable' | 9.0 | i386 Fedora | 'stable' | 1[0] | i386 > Debian GNU/Linux | `woody' | 3.0r3 | i386 > SuSE | `stable' | ??? | i386 //Fedora (Yarrow) is now billited as the stable release in current tenure //from redhat. > and build the packages for those systems, using the system default > compiler, and what ever optinal packages they can dig up. However, the > optional packages should be widely available in a native form (that is, > as a binary package - not a custom build). > > Of course, if ROOT would choose a different licence, like say the LGPL > or even the GPL, and do away with the clause the prohibits > redistribution of derived work with out an explicit consent, ROOT could > go into `contrib' (or even `main') branch of Debian GNU/Linux anf the > Debian auto-builders would take care of doing regular binary package > build of ROOT for Debian GNU/Linux. I have no idea whether Red Hat has > or will have a similar feature. Hopefully soon. Fedora is supposed to point the way to debian-esque like bliss for us red- and fedora-hatted people. Justin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:50:17 MET