On Wed, 28 May 2003, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >I get cdrtools sources from ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ and
> >then I use MY OWN SPEC file to build MY OWN RPM package.
>
> Sounds strange! Why should one hack something around a working packet?
What hack? Using RPM to package software is not hacking - it doesn't
change the source! It doesn't even change the compilation command - it
simply calls 'make' after unpacking the tar archive.
> Just compile the source the correct way (by simply calling "make" after you
> did upack the tar archive) and it will work as intended.
That's what I'm doing right now. Let's see...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cdrtools-2.01]# tar xzf cdrtools-2.01a14.tar.gz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] SOURCES]# cd cdrtools-2.01
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cdrtools-2.01]# make
RULES/rules1.top:213: incs/Dcc.alpha-linux: No such file or directory
sh ./conf/cc-config.sh cc incs/Dcc.alpha-linux
Trying to find cc
Found cc
Creating empty 'incs/Dcc.alpha-linux'
==> MAKING "all" ON SUBDIRECTORY "SRCROOT/conf"
<snip>
make[1]: Entering directory
`/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/cdrtools-2.01/scgcheck'
==> COMPILING "OBJ/alpha-linux-cc/scgcheck.o"
==> COMPILING "OBJ/alpha-linux-cc/sense.o"
==> COMPILING "OBJ/alpha-linux-cc/dmaresid.o"
==> COMPILING "OBJ/alpha-linux-cc/scsi_scan.o"
==> COMPILING "OBJ/alpha-linux-cc/scsi_cdr.o"
==> COMPILING "OBJ/alpha-linux-cc/cd_misc.o"
==> COMPILING "OBJ/alpha-linux-cc/modes.o"
==> LINKING "OBJ/alpha-linux-cc/scgcheck"
make[1]: Leaving directory
`/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/cdrtools-2.01/scgcheck'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cdrtools-2.01]# tail -26 incs/alpha-linux-cc/xconfig.h | head -10
/*
* Strings that help to maintain OS/platform id's in C-programs
*/
#define HOST_ALIAS "alphapca56-unknown-linux-gnu" /* Output from
config.guess (orig) */
#define HOST_SUB "" /* Output from config.sub (modified) */
#define HOST_CPU "" /* CPU part from HOST_SUB */
#define HOST_VENDOR "" /* VENDOR part from HOST_SUB */
#define HOST_OS "" /* CPU part from HOST_SUB */
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cdrtools-2.01]# ./cdrecord/OBJ/alpha-linux-cc/cdrecord --version
Cdrecord 2.01a14 (--) Copyright (C) 1995-2003 Jörg Schilling
> Conclusion: your RPM stuff is useless (even more counter productive) and
> should not be used if you are interested in correct binaries.
Conclusion 1: Compiling without RPM (manually, following your instruction)
gives EXACTLY the same result.
Conclusion 2: I'm interested in correct binaries packaged in a nice,
usefull package that I can install on every similar system I may have.
Besides that, my question was very specific about a new kind of COPY
PROTECTION.
Further more, cdrecord works very well on my system even though it's WRONG
(according to you).
Danilo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
