So what do people think of a reference implementation distribution
around rpm5? I recognize that the politics could quickly overshadow
the utility, but my idea was nothing fancy, no patches, just a
minimalist Linux system that reflects how to use rpm and what ways rpm
provides to solve different
On Jun 4, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Jason Corley wrote:
So what do people think of a reference implementation distribution
around rpm5? I recognize that the politics could quickly overshadow
the utility, but my idea was nothing fancy, no patches, just a
minimalist Linux system that reflects how
How about using the packages in the inner circle of dependency hell as
a starting reference implementation? That basically means that the
package set
is enough to get /bin/sh functional in a chroot and nothing more.
This is exactly what I was thinking, everything up to a shell with
perhaps one
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Andy Green wrote:
Hatle, Mark wrote:
I'm more of the mindset for this we need to be Fedora based, or some
other common point of reference (both cross compiled and not) so that
it's easy to see what changes we made to another frame of reference.
I'm familiar with
(apologies in advance for wonderful email formatting.. outlook strikes again...)
On Jun 4, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Hatle, Mark wrote:
QEMU, can't emulate EABI and/or NPTL on ARM.. (or couldn't last I
looked...)
Are EABI and/or NPTL needed for *building*? Sure they are needed
for installing on the
Andy Green wrote:
Jeff Johnson wrote:
Are EABI and/or NPTL needed for *building*? Sure they are needed
for installing on the target.
NPTL is probably a no. But EABI is a yes. You can't mix OABI and
EABI binaries. All of the embedded ARM development has moved to EABI
binaries. (As an
configure and attempting to cross compile.
Give me a bit of time, and I'll show some examples.. I have to get up to speed
w/ rpm 4_5 development first.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andy Green
Sent: Mon 6/4/2007 4:28 PM
To: rpm-devel@rpm5.org
Subject: Re: reference
