Re: GreatBridge RPMs (was: Re: question)

"Roderick A. Anderson" wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > RPM.  That should work, unless the package spec makes some unportable
> > assumptions, such as different file system layouts.  But that is often
> > only an annoyance, not a real problem.

> I'm glad to see GreatBridge will be providing RPM's for many
> distributions.  Though I do tend to re-compile from source I've found that
> those mdk's don't work too good with RHL.

And I _love_ to get feedback about the nonportable things I do in the
spec files (right, Peter ? :-)).

I am trying (and Great Bridge helped) to get a fully
distribution-independent source RPM working.  I am closer than I was --
the same spec file now works on RedHat, Mandrake, Turbo, and (to a
lesser extent) Caldera, and soon will work seamlessly on SuSE. It may
very well work on others.  The hooks are there now for SuSE -- just some
fill-in work left to be done.

Portability is hard.  C programmers have known this for some time -- but
the RPM specfile doesn't really lend itself to vast portability. 
Although, I am learning some real tricks that really help.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11