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 somewhat out of date.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