Another question:
if I have an application that is not in RPM format but good old binary and
source format, how can I include it into the New Remastered CD?
Regards,
Uriel_Carrasquilla@ncci.com
NCCI
Boca Raton, Florida
561.893.2415
greetings / avec mes meilleures salutations / Cordialmente
mit freundlichen Grüßen / Med vänlig hälsning
Shriramana Sharma
Uriel_Carrasquilla@ncci.com wrote:
Another question: if I have an application that is not in RPM format but good old binary and source format, how can I include it into the New Remastered CD?
Turn it into an RPM :-) - not a joke, that is what'll you need to do. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen wrote:
if I have an application that is not in RPM format but good old binary and source format, how can I include it into the New Remastered CD?
Turn it into an RPM :-) - not a joke, that is what'll you need to do.
And how do I do that? I searched the net a bit, but found nothing helpful. -- Shriramana Sharma http://samvit.org (o- Penguin #395953 //\ running on ancient Indian wisdom V_/_ and modern computing efficiency
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 08:32:47PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
if I have an application that is not in RPM format but good old binary and source format, how can I include it into the New Remastered CD?
Turn it into an RPM :-) - not a joke, that is what'll you need to do.
And how do I do that? I searched the net a bit, but found nothing helpful.
http://www.opensuse.org/index.php/SUSE_Build_Tutorial#Resources has a few links at the bottom. Sonja -- Sonja Krause-Harder (skh@suse.de) Research & Development SUSE Linux Products GmbH
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 05:06:25PM +0200, Sonja Krause-Harder wrote:
http://www.opensuse.org/index.php/SUSE_Build_Tutorial#Resources has a few links at the bottom.
I just use checkinstall. What are the advatages to do it as described on http://www.opensuse.org/index.php/SUSE_Build_Tutorial ? It looks very complex compared to just type `./configure && make && sudo checkinstall` houghi -- God is a polytheist.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 05:32:54PM +0200, houghi wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 05:06:25PM +0200, Sonja Krause-Harder wrote:
http://www.opensuse.org/index.php/SUSE_Build_Tutorial#Resources has a few links at the bottom.
I just use checkinstall. What are the advatages to do it as described on http://www.opensuse.org/index.php/SUSE_Build_Tutorial ?
This depends on what you expect from your package. Using checkinstall is ok, if you want to build a package fast to try something out and you have no clue about the components of the package. It is a tool that allows you to keep your brain in suspend mode. The disadvantage of checkinstall is that it just packages what happens to be installed on a "make install" run by accident. It is not very unlikely that your package will not work on a different system where "make install" would have done something completely different. And it is not very unlikely that your package will be completely different when you rebuild it again. Using the traditional RPM method of building packages allows you to exactly specify each step of building. And due to these specifications in the spec file the build is perfectly reproducable (if your specifications are sane).
It looks very complex compared to just type `./configure && make && sudo checkinstall`
Flying an airplane is much slower and much more complex than riding on a solid rocket. --- Why do you think some people still insist on flying with an airplane from San Francisco to Los Angeles when they could bind themselves to a solid rocket and boost themselves from San Francisco to Los Angeles within seconds? Sorry for being somewhat polemic but I consider tools like checkinstall just a piece of ugly crap. Robert -- Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2214 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:50:56PM +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:
Sorry for being somewhat polemic but I consider tools like checkinstall just a piece of ugly crap.
Doing a 'make install' is then also a just a piece of ugly crap. At least that is how I read your comment. Well, I am off working with my piece of ugly crap and put my mind in suspend mode. I am sorry to even thought about asking. houghi -- Fortune's Real-Life Courtroom Quote #52: Q: What is your name? A: Ernestine McDowell. Q: And what is your marital status? A: Fair.
houghi wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:50:56PM +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:
Sorry for being somewhat polemic but I consider tools like checkinstall just a piece of ugly crap.
Doing a 'make install' is then also a just a piece of ugly crap. At least that is how I read your comment.
No, that's suicide. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Development V_/_ http://www.suse.de/
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:40:09PM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
houghi wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:50:56PM +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:
Sorry for being somewhat polemic but I consider tools like checkinstall just a piece of ugly crap.
Doing a 'make install' is then also a just a piece of ugly crap. At least that is how I read your comment.
No, that's suicide.
So following the README provioded by the person who wrote the code is suicide? Nice to know. I will never read a README or INSTALL in my life. houghi -- "Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time." -- Steven Wright
houghi schrieb:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:40:09PM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
houghi wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:50:56PM +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:
Sorry for being somewhat polemic but I consider tools like checkinstall just a piece of ugly crap.
Doing a 'make install' is then also a just a piece of ugly crap. At least that is how I read your comment.
No, that's suicide.
So following the README provioded by the person who wrote the code is suicide? Nice to know. I will never read a README or INSTALL in my life.
houghi
thats why there are so many users of windows out there and still alive: the just look for a setup.exe, and when there are any README- or INSTALL- files they ignore them ;)) [ but as we all know - thats suicide on hire ... ] JBScout
what is want is a single cd setup with kde and all codecs and plugins included. have a look at pclinuxos :D
houghi wrote:
So following the README provioded by the person who wrote the code is suicide? Nice to know. I will never read a README or INSTALL in my life.
these files must be read with great caution. They are often very out of date. True, I like to play with beta's :-), but mediawiki 1.5 (for example) is the production system of wikipedia, so I can think the product is fairly stable (and it is), but the Update file speaks still about upgrading from 1.3 to 1.4... the README author is usually of good faith, but can't know all your config and any automatic install may cause problems. It's why there are SUSE and beta testers :-) jdd -- pour m'écrire, aller sur: http://www.dodin.net http://valerie.dodin.net http://arvamip.free.fr
Google: creating rpm's
I also think Linux-mag.com ran a two part segment on
creating rpm's.
--- Shriramana Sharma
Per Jessen wrote:
if I have an application that is not in RPM format but good old binary and source format, how can I include it into the New Remastered CD?
Turn it into an RPM :-) - not a joke, that is what'll you need to do.
And how do I do that? I searched the net a bit, but found nothing helpful.
--
Shriramana Sharma http://samvit.org
(o- Penguin #395953 //\ running on ancient Indian wisdom V_/_ and modern computing efficiency
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
participants (11)
-
Carlos -
houghi -
JBScout -
jdd -
Lintech -
Ludwig Nussel -
Per Jessen -
Robert Schiele -
Shriramana Sharma -
Sonja Krause-Harder -
Uriel_Carrasquilla＠ncci.com