SuSE! What's up with the inconsistent src.rpms?
Hey, I've downloaded and installed both the i386 and the src.rpms for mod_php4-4.0.4pl1-33. rpm -qi mod_php4 gives me the following details: Name : mod_php4 Relocations: (not relocateable) Version : 4.0.4pl1 Vendor: SuSE GmbH, Nuernberg, Germany Release : 33 Build Date: Fri Mar 16 20:07:00 2001 <snip> Group : Networking/Daemons Source RPM: mod_php4-4.0.4pl1-33.src.rpm <snip> URL : http://www.php4.net/ Summary : Latest version of the HTML embedded scripting language But that is NOT what the src.rpm spec says: Provides: php php4 mod_php4 zend Requires: apache Conflicts: midgard mod_php Autoreqprov: on Version: 4.0.4pl1 Release: 33 Source0: ftp://ftp.php.net/pub/version4/downloads/php-%{version}.tar.gz Source2: http://reality.sgi.com/grafica/flash/dist.99.linux.tar.Z Source3: asp2php-0.75.11.tar.gz Patch0: php-%{version}.dif URL: http://www.php4.net/ Icon: php4.xpm Summary: Latest version of the HTML embedded scripting language %package roxen Summary: PHP4 for the Roxen server Group: Networking/Daemons Requires: roxen This is the src.rpm: ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/update/7.1/zq1/mod_php4-4.0.4pl1-33.src.rpm I don't care who says what, SOMEONE labled the roxen mod_php4 srpm as the src.rpm for mod_php4-4.0.4pl1-33.i386.rpm but it is obviously not the one SuSE used internally. ATTN SuSE: I need the real mod_php4-4.0.4pl1-33.src.rpm , could you please put it up really soon, or else explain to me why the current one says it's for the Roxen web server? Thanks, ---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wilson System Administrator Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com Central Texas IT http://www.centraltexasit.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On April 19, 2001 03:13 pm, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
Hey,
I've downloaded and installed both the i386 and the src.rpms for mod_php4-4.0.4pl1-33. rpm -qi mod_php4 gives me the following details:
<snip>
I don't care who says what, SOMEONE labled the roxen mod_php4 srpm as the src.rpm for mod_php4-4.0.4pl1-33.i386.rpm but it is obviously not the one SuSE used internally.
There doesn't seem to be anything wrong here. One src.rpm can create multiple rpms. This looks like it creates rpms for *both* apache and roxen. Check out the XFree86 src.rpm for a *major* example of this. - -- James Oakley Engineering - SolutionInc Ltd. joakley@solutioninc.com http://www.solutioninc.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE63zFC+FOexA3koIgRAgEkAKCkzTTsf9ZKD9ttMjIwX5/vJ7INqQCfTq21 GfbXwdDxjWrTZ6r5/6WLfnk= =vwxk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
* Jonathan Wilson [Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:13:43 -0500]: First of all, could you in future please wrap your line at something less than 75 chars? It makes reading your mail much easier in some text mode mail readers and it's also standard netiquette.
I don't care who says what, SOMEONE labled the roxen mod_php4 srpm as the src.rpm for mod_php4-4.0.4pl1-33.i386.rpm but it is obviously not the one SuSE used internally.
Yes, it *is* the correct source rpm, rest asured.
ATTN SuSE: I need the real mod_php4-4.0.4pl1-33.src.rpm , could you please put it up really soon,
Please note that your chances of reaching SuSE are much higher when sending a mail to feedback@suse.de. There are only a few employees on this list and all of them don't get paid for participating here. And you've already got the right src.rpm ;-)
or else explain to me why the current one says it's for the Roxen web server?
Slight error of our internal maintainer. I'll see to it tomorrow. Philipp -- Penguins to save the dinosaurs -- Handelsblatt on Linux for S/390
At 10:00 AM 4/27/2001 +0200, you wrote:
* Jonathan Wilson [Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:13:43 -0500]:
1. I was wrong to post this in the first palce - that's nothing wrong with the RPM, it's for both apache and roxen
First of all, could you in future please wrap your line at something less than 75 chars?
No, I could not. I do not like line wrapping because it messes up code examples very badly, and also on long topic-threads, line wrapping causes ugly formatting in the form of one-word and one-character lines that make things difficult to read. If you, or anyone, does not like long lines, you should find a mail reader that does the wrapping for you. I makes much more sense for people who want line wrapping to find a reader that wraps rather then asking everyone on the net to wrap it before they send. Sorry.
It makes reading your mail much easier in some text mode mail readers and it's also standard netiquette.
Sorry again, but I think maybe you'd be happier with a reader that did wrapping for you.
I don't care who says what, SOMEONE labled the roxen mod_php4 srpm as the src.rpm for mod_php4-4.0.4pl1-33.i386.rpm but it is obviously not the one SuSE used internally.
Yes, it *is* the correct source rpm, rest asured.
Bingo.
ATTN SuSE: I need the real mod_php4-4.0.4pl1-33.src.rpm , could you please put it up really soon,
Please note that your chances of reaching SuSE are much higher when sending a mail to feedback@suse.de. There are only a few employees on this list and all of them don't get paid for participating here.
True. I was just complaining - bad me :-O
And you've already got the right src.rpm ;-)
Yup.
or else explain to me why the current one says it's for the Roxen web server?
Slight error of our internal maintainer. I'll see to it tomorrow.
Well I'm not so sure there is anything wrong with it after all, is there?
Philipp
---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wilson System Administrator Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com Central Texas IT http://www.centraltexasit.com
* Jonathan Wilson
First of all, could you in future please wrap your line at something less than 75 chars?
No, I could not. I do not like line wrapping because it messes up code examples very badly, and also on long topic-threads, line wrapping causes ugly formatting in the form of one-word and one-character lines that make things difficult to read. If you, or anyone, does not like long lines, you should find a mail reader that does the wrapping for you.
Well, if you setup was properly you would just _not_ wrap codelines, or other lines that did not do good with wrapping. And no -- I'm not gonna switch to another mailreader, so the consequence for me is that the limited amount of time I have to read and reply to this list, is not gonna be used on unwrapped mails. Sorry, but that is how I work.
I makes much more sense for people who want line wrapping to find a reader that wraps rather then asking everyone on the net to wrap it before they send.
Sorry.
It makes reading your mail much easier in some text mode mail readers and it's also standard netiquette.
Sorry again, but I think maybe you'd be happier with a reader that did wrapping for you.
I am finally happy now that I found one that does - so I'm not gonna change that. It would be a good idea if people read: http://learn.to/edit_messages Thanks, Mads Martin -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogic, with just a little bit more effort." -- A. P. J.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
At 10:00 AM 4/27/2001 +0200, you wrote:
* Jonathan Wilson [Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:13:43 -0500]:
1. I was wrong to post this in the first palce - that's nothing wrong with the RPM, it's for both apache and roxen
First of all, could you in future please wrap your line at something less than 75 chars?
No, I could not. I do not like line wrapping because it messes up code examples very badly, and also on long topic-threads, line wrapping causes ugly formatting in the form of one-word and one-character lines that make things difficult to read. If you, or anyone, does not like long lines, you should find a mail reader that does the wrapping for you.
WRONG! Please note that you were not asked to use AUTOMATIC linewrapping. Just hit enter every 70 characters or so. The reason you should wrap lines is: a mail-COMPOSER should NOT reformat your text when I reply. Therefore, if you do not wrap your lines, any decent mail-composer will simply leave that long line as it is, thereby PRESERVING any code examples you might have written. However, the composer has NO WAY to differentiate between normal text and code, so your normal text will ALSO be left as one long line, which will of course only get a single quote-character at the beginning. Result: long lines give ugly and confusing quotes.
I makes much more sense for people who want line wrapping to find a reader that wraps rather then asking everyone on the net to wrap it before they send.
This is simply arrogant! Some people read their mail at work or some other place, where they have NO CHOICE about their mail-software.
Sorry.
It makes reading your mail much easier in some text mode mail readers and it's also standard netiquette.
Sorry again, but I think maybe you'd be happier with a reader that did wrapping for you.
My READER does wrapping just fine to whatever size its window is. My COMPOSER also wraps just fine, but of course only my text. (Unless I specifically tell it to wrap the text I am replying to).
Jonathan, hit the enter key. I fell off my chair following your one liners all the way out. Tom On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Ole Kofoed Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
At 10:00 AM 4/27/2001 +0200, you wrote:
* Jonathan Wilson [Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:13:43 -0500]:
1. I was wrong to post this in the first palce - that's nothing wrong with the RPM, it's for both apache and roxen
First of all, could you in future please wrap your line at something less than 75 chars?
No, I could not. I do not like line wrapping because it messes up code examples very badly, and also on long topic-threads, line wrapping causes ugly formatting in the form of one-word and one-character lines that make things difficult to read. If you, or anyone, does not like long lines, you should find a mail reader that does the wrapping for you.
WRONG!
Please note that you were not asked to use AUTOMATIC linewrapping. Just hit enter every 70 characters or so.
The reason you should wrap lines is: a mail-COMPOSER should NOT reformat your text when I reply. Therefore, if you do not wrap your lines, any decent mail-composer will simply leave that long line as it is, thereby PRESERVING any code examples you might have written. However, the composer has NO WAY to differentiate between normal text and code, so your normal text will ALSO be left as one long line, which will of course only get a single quote-character at the beginning.
Result: long lines give ugly and confusing quotes.
I makes much more sense for people who want line wrapping to find a reader that wraps rather then asking everyone on the net to wrap it before they send.
This is simply arrogant! Some people read their mail at work or some other place, where they have NO CHOICE about their mail-software.
Sorry.
It makes reading your mail much easier in some text mode mail readers and it's also standard netiquette.
Sorry again, but I think maybe you'd be happier with a reader that did wrapping for you.
My READER does wrapping just fine to whatever size its window is. My COMPOSER also wraps just fine, but of course only my text. (Unless I specifically tell it to wrap the text I am replying to).
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com
* Jonathan Wilson (wilson@claborn.net) [20010419 20:03]:
Patch0: php-%{version}.dif URL: http://www.php4.net/ Icon: php4.xpm Summary: Latest version of the HTML embedded scripting language %package roxen <---------------- Summary: PHP4 for the Roxen server Group: Networking/Daemons Requires: roxen
ATTN SuSE: I need the real mod_php4-4.0.4pl1-33.src.rpm , could you please put it up really soon, or else explain to me why the current one says it's for the Roxen web server?
Could it be that you missed that '%package roxen' ? I certainly did when
first looking at the file. The summary below is for the mod_php4-roxen subpackage
and thus is indeed correct.
The Summery above that %package is the one that you should be interest in
and it matches the Summary of the binary rpm.
So it's just a minor cosmetic issue after all.
Philipp
--
Philipp Thomas
participants (6)
-
James Oakley -
Mads Martin Jørgensen -
Ole Kofoed Hansen -
Philipp Thomas -
tompoe -
wilson＠claborn.net