> Bacula-2.2 RPM Release Notes > 03 September 2007 > The spec file currently supports building on the following platforms:
> # Whitebox Enterprise build > --define "build_wb3 1" > > # RedHat Enterprise builds > --define "build_rhel3 1" > --define "build_rhel4 1" > > # CentOS build > --define "build_centos3 1" > --define "build_centos4 1" > > # Scientific Linux build > --define "build_sl3 1" > --define "build_sl4 1" > Seems to build (haven't tested yet how it runs) on CentOS5 too, when asked to build for CentOS4. But does not, if asking for RHEL4 This leads to question, if it is really necessary to have separate build options for all the clones of one "upstream" distribution? AFAIK, there should be no functional differencies between RHELx and CentOSx... just minor changes to cope with trademark issues etc. Scientific Linux was something I had never heard before. Now, I'm just wondering wouldn't it be more simple to add just one "more_tolerant" option that effectively would bypass the platform test, instead of having options of their own for each of the clones? Sooner or later, someone will again release one more "exact copy" of another distribution, but just due to a different name it won't be possible to build on that system then. Or is there really a need to check the platform so strictly? Regards, Timo ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
