On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:03:03 +0100, peter wrote: >Call me stupid but I still don't see the point of having src.rpm w/o a >source inside.
How would you otherwise build installable RPMs which you *need* to make a package cleanly and reliably installable and deinstallable and be able to manage dependencies, at least in a distribution like openSUSE that's based on RPMs? The *only* viable way is by using a .spec to install files and then let them be packaged in one or more binary RPMs. The original files including the .spec file are automatically packaged as .src.rpm. How else do you think we create installable the RPMs for Adobe acrobat or Opera for which there also is no source code? Please think about it a bit more and it should be obvious why you need .src.rpm no matter if you got sources to compile or simply files to install. With your reasoning, it would also make no sense to put a bundle of shell scripts into a .src.rpm. >Still you do not explain why using src.rpm instead of rpm! Because you're not allowed to distribute the software as a directly installable RPM? A .src.rpm allows you to build such a package for yourself. >Looks like you do have slightly bigger problems than me my friend. Me, problems? I tend to disagree with you :) Who wrote that he doubts that such a package would be available? Who ridiculed me without checking first? Definitely not me! Its the same everywhere: you should be able to prove your claims before stating them in the public otherwise people will stop believing what you say. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
