Hello! Could someone tell me where can I find Samba 3.0 spec file for UL?
js <fyrbrds@netscape.net> [Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:00:31 +0200]:
If you don't get a spec, try installing with checkinstall. It will compile and build the rpm for you even without a spec file.
Specially for something like samba I'd stay as far away as possible from checkinstall. Checkinstall won't split up the package into sub packages, least of all sub packages matching those on the distribution and it also won't set all provides/requires that the SuSE packages have. <soapbox> checkinstall is a huge cluge that shouldn't have been written in the first place and that should be avoided by any means. Learn to write spec files and how to create your own RPMs, it's *much* more rewarding! </soapbox> Philipp
Philipp Thomas wrote:
js <fyrbrds@netscape.net> [Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:00:31 +0200]:
If you don't get a spec, try installing with checkinstall. It will compile and build the rpm for you even without a spec file.
Specially for something like samba I'd stay as far away as possible from checkinstall. Checkinstall won't split up the package into sub packages, least of all sub packages matching those on the distribution and it also won't set all provides/requires that the SuSE packages have.
<soapbox> checkinstall is a huge cluge that shouldn't have been written in the first place and that should be avoided by any means. Learn to write spec files and how to create your own RPMs, it's *much* more rewarding! </soapbox>
Philipp
Aside from being purely opinionated, this assumes that everyone can do this stuff. People who can do what you say certainly won't be here on this list asking for help or even spec files. As long as you use --prefix to set the paths, checkinstall will definitely be better than compiling then doing make install as most fairly unseasoned users do. In no time at all, you have a harddrive full of software and libraries that you don't even remember installing with no rpm database to use for a sanity check. At least using checkinstall will add the install to your database and facilitate an easy removal if necessary. If multiple versions get installed it will be a whole lot easier to backtrack and fix than it would otherwise be. So while checkinstall is not a perfect solution, I've been using it where needed for over 2 years with no problems. So yes, it SHOULD have been written and should NOT be avoided if it makes things easier. As long as you know it's limitations and you understand what you are doing, there should be no significant risks. JS
js <fyrbrds@netscape.net> [Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:32:39 +0200]:
Aside from being purely opinionated, this assumes that everyone can do this stuff.
Can everybody write a shell script? Can everybody configure daemons? So why should everybody be able to install software from source? Learning to write spec files is not that hard and the benefits numerous.
In no time at all, you have a harddrive full of software and libraries that you don't even remember installing with no rpm database to use for a sanity check.
Sorry, but I'd say those people should stick with pre built RPMs. What if a given package doesn't build because the compiler rejects certain code?
So yes, it SHOULD have been written and should NOT be avoided if it makes things easier. As long as you know it's limitations and you understand what you are doing, there should be no significant risks.
And this I seriously doubt! AFAIS, many, if not most, people using checkinstall don't really understand limitations. Yes, some things should be made easy, but there's a limit as to *how* easy they should be made. Philipp
participants (3)
-
Dmitry Melekhov -
js -
Philipp Thomas