-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Wednesday 2006-12-06 at 23:27 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote: > Carlos E. R. wrote: > > The Wednesday 2006-12-06 at 16:10 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > ... > >>>>> c-ares containes libcares and is available in the same > >>>>> location. > >>>> And how on earth was I to know that libcares.so.1 is included in c-ares? > > That's basically what repositories are made for. > What are you expecting ? Black magic ? > Just because c-ares does not ship with SUSE, I shouldn't have built > c-ares async DNS support in my aria2 RPMs ? I'm not saying that. What I say is that using the command line "rpm -i ..." there is no way I can know what package contains that library. And I insist that I don't want to add a new repository to Yast, because that operation takes over an hour, and then YOU takes even longer to start. I understand that repositories solve it another way - I didn't know that previously - but that makes things more difficult for installing a single lone rpm. Now I also know that looking inside the filelists.xml.gz file of the repository and searching for the file in question, I can learn the name of the missing rpm. > There's a lot of packages you wouldn't get anywhere for SUSE Linux then. > > >>> 'smart' told me > ... > > The command "rpm -test -i aria2.rpm" should have told me that: there is a > > "requires" token in the spec file precissely for that purpose, to list the > > required rpms, no need to go searching. > > No it is not. > Using Requires: with explicit package names is considered bad practice. > > Again, as you didn't care to answer that in my previous mail: all of the > RPMs build by the SUSE packagers and all the RPMs that are on the Build > Service are done exactly the same way: *without* explicit Requires. > That's what AutoReqProv is for, and package managers can resolve those > automatic dependencies back to packages. What is it I did not answer? :-? And now that you explain it that way it is understandable why you make it that way. You probably know better than me, but I prefer explicit "requires". > > Don't tell me I suck at building RPMs. Hey! You are way too touchy. I never said that, and even less referring to _you_. I didn't know it was you. And that's true even if you don't believe me. > ... > > It did. I got "wxDownload Fast" compiled, instead, and I will try that > > one. The aria2 goes out of the window. > > aria2 works really well though, very lightweight (uses even less RAM > than rtorrent). That's understandable, and that's why I wanted to try that one first. > > And it's not even that hard to compile: > autoreconf -fiv > export CXXFLAGS="-I/usr/include/libxml2" > ./configure --prefix=/usr/local \ > --enable-gnutls \ > --enable-bittorrent \ > --enable-metalink > make > make install > > The only trick is > export CXXFLAGS="-I/usr/include/libxml2" That's similar to the method I have used, except the autoreconf part (which bombs out in my system, anyway). But the CXXFLAGS trick doesn't work; observe what I get: checking for libxml - version >= 2.6.24... *** An old version of libxml (2.6.23) was found. *** You need a version of libxml newer than 2.6.24. The latest version of *** libxml is always available from ftp://ftp.xmlsoft.org. *** It still wants a newer version of the libxml, and without it, metalink support is disabled. > You could have looked at the .spec file in my aria2.src.rpm as I pointed > you to the directory where it is available from: > http://ftp.skynet.be/pub/suser-guru/rpm/packages/Network/aria2/src/ Because 1) I haven't had time yet, I was answering email and attending my real life; and 2) because when I was trying to compile it I didn't know of that site and the relation to the one I was told about. Why isn't it there at "ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/misc/suser-guru/rpm/10.1/RPMS/src"? That's where I would expect source rpms to be. [...] I got it compiled with a hack: editing the configure script thus: min_xml_version=2.6.23 # min_xml_version=2.6.24 With that single change, the configure and make works fine (no parameters needed), and the programs seems to run fine, too - so does your version, of course, which I have also installed and used, but I prefer my own if I can get it ;-) And this solves my original question :-) - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFFeJ61tTMYHG2NR9URAgWQAKCQdfKMGWq0rMM6K6mHeDeFSADuCgCglQ0J BtDTEiBEtkl9JAc6hOHMPyg= =fEyL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
