Paul Davis wrote:
>
> >> Please, would people stop using RPM's or any package system for that
> >> matter to install libraries that they need to use with applications
> >> that they have to compile from source?
> >
> > Perhaps the programmer should make an RPM available so people
> >don't have to compile their application directly from the source.
>
> only to find that it core dumps and behaves in mysterious ways because
> of a minor change in one of the binary-RPM-installed libraries it
> links against.
>
> and frankly, the point of not providing RPMs is not to be
> spiteful. its to stop anyone from thinking that they've got "a
> version" of Ardour. there are many times when i change hundreds of
> lines of absolutely basic code in Ardour in one day. i don't want
> people downloading RPMs and then continuing to feed me with bug
> reports. thats why i don't like tarballs right now either. CVS makes
> it easy for me to say "pick up the changes" because i know it will
> take them less than a minute to download and then they get a clean
> rebuild. telling someone to download a multi-MB binary package 4 times
> a day in order to try to fix a bug is not my idea of "user
> friendliness" for the current community of users.
>
> when things are more stable, providing a binary would make sense. it
> won't, however, deal with library versioning and compiler
> compatibility issues.
>
> --p
This is where a source rpm is nice. You don't have to produce a binary
version. A source rpm would provide all of the benefits and lose most of
the disadvantages, forcing a compile, but once it is compiled, it would
produce a binary rpm that was compiled/linked on the specific machine.
Or it would produce the original tarball...both are possible that way.
And yes, it is a lot of work to create rpm's, moving source targets
probably suck to maintain on rpm, unless you have some sort of well set
up macro/script.
D. Stimits, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
