Hi all! Yes, I made ebulds for 3.03/xx versions. As I remember, all of them are in unstable branch. I haven't made any checks for several months because I'm not involved in any work. But next week I can review all you need. So, send me all info as cocerned to Gentoo port. On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Fons Rademakers wrote: > It was removed because Dmytro told me that he was working on a better > makefile. > > Cheers, Fons. > > > > On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 21:59, Rene Brun wrote: > > Hi Dejan, > > > > Early this year, I received the following mail from > > Dmytro.Kustov@cern.ch > > > > " I'm using Gentoo Linux OS on my machine. It builds itself only from > > sources. ROOT is included in its "portage tree". I provided them a new > > version 3.05/03 (they use 3.03/04). During installation it patches > > Makefile.linux. To simplify the installation process I may provide you a > > Gentoo's Makefile to include it in the future ROOT version (3.05/04?). > > Will you include it in the future ROOT release?" > > > > Dmitry sent a Makefile.linuxgentoo that was introduced in CVS, but > > removed later by Fons for a reason that I cannot remember. > > > > Dmitry, Fons, any news about this implementation? > > > > Rene Brun > > > > On > > Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Dejan Nikic wrote: > > > > > 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 somewhat out of date.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