On Tue October 31 2006 09:21, Robert Osfield wrote: > On 10/31/06, Robert Osfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Don, > > > > On 10/31/06, Eric Sokolowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > A while back I uploaded some OSG 1.2 packages for Fedora Core 4. Did > > > these ever make it to the download page? > > > > I'm afraid not, thanks for the reminder though, I'll need to update them. > > I'm just looking at the .rpm's on the ftp upload directory: > > OpenSceneGraph-1.2-2.i386.rpm > OpenSceneGraph-debuginfo-1.2-2.i386.rpm > OpenSceneGraph-devel-1.2-2.i386.rpm > OpenSceneGraph-examples-1.2-2.i386.rpm > OpenThreads-1.2-2.i386.rpm > OpenThreads-devel-1.2-2.i386.rpm > Producer-1.2-2.i386.rpm > Producer-devel-1.2-2.i386.rpm > > I was a bit suprised to see the OpenThreads and Producer versions > tagged with the OSG release number rather than their own release > numbers. > > Would renaming them be sufficient? Would they still work? > > > Robert. > The version numbers are usually pulled out of the .spec file from the source rpm (.srpm).
Just renaming the .rpm files will not change the way that rpm will try to solve dependencies when they are installed. If Eric can post the .spec file(s) or the source rpm, and assuming they are generated out of the sources on the websile, I can fix the version numbers and regenerate a set for Fedora5 (what I currently have). The .spec files can then be used to re-generate for other red-hat versions. -- Mihai Radu cm-labs.com _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://openscenegraph.net/mailman/listinfo/osg-users http://www.openscenegraph.org/
