Re: [ROOT] root rpms

From: Dejan Nikic (dejann@u.washington.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 15 2003 - 21:06:49 MET


Speaking of different packages and stuff is Gentoo supported, or does
anyone have ebuilds? I'd be more than happy to make one if there is enough
people using gentoo out there.


On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Justin Findlay wrote:

> 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 somewhat out of date.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