also sprach linuxpeople:
> > Wouldn't it just be possible to:
> >
> > 1) do everything in the INSTALL on a ``faster'' development machine,
> > 2) tar up the source tree with the binaries already built,
> > 3) transfer it to the less-disk-endowed machine,
> > 4) untar it, and
> > 5) run make setup check?
>
> Obviously, I even suggested that.
Did you try it? To what effect?
> > All of this without requiring a compiler on the lesser machine...doable?
> > (For that matter, ``linuxpeople'', you should be able to build a binary RPM
>
> Is that a slam against the name "linuxpeople"?
Not at all, you didn't provide a name, I wished to address you by your
``Christian'' name, so I used the only thing you did provide. Relax a
little.
> > from the source RPM on the faster machine and use that binary to install on
> > the lesser machine.)
>
> Why should I have to go through that bother?
Um, because your system wasn't working and you want it to work? ``I want to
be a cool Linux dude, but I don't want to go through the bother of actually
learning anything. What should I do?''
> The qmail page provides a link
> to an RPM for red hat in the first paragraph. http://www.qmail.org/top.html
> SRC RPMS are as much of a hassle as compiling and moving qmail/
Get used to it. System administration is, in general, a hassle.
> You know, nearly everyones response has been "you should have read this or
> that" well I am here to tell you I do read very well, and have read all
> available docs for 4 days. The docs can not possibly cover every situation,
> and did not cover mine! Reading is a lot easier then dealing with
> antosocial-newbie-haters that wish they were part of the l33t that run
> Internet but are stuck volunteering on a free software maill support list,
> so they pick on every obvious newbie that asks a question.
I, for one, did not pick on you in the least. And yet, you attack me, like
the clueless luser you now show yourself to be. Lighten up, and try not to
get so agitated over every little thing.
> > Why? Because this is NOT a Linux, Redhat, gcc, RPM, &c. support list.
>
> I never claimed it was, I initially asked questions about a running install
> of qmail that had errors. I was told to re-install from source (among other
> less-helpful suggestions) for the best effect, and that people might be able
> to help with the error I mentioned. It is already done compiling now. I
> sure as hell hope the docs cover runnig and maintaing qmail better than they
> do the installation.
Interestingly, by following the docs, I have *never* *ever* had these
problems that you are experiencing. While I am sorry to hear that you are
having these problems, I would hardly fault the docs.
> Like I said in this post you are replying to "I realize this is not a qmail
> problem, rather a small - install problem and
> do appreciate any help offered" Who needs to read more closely?
Like I can follow your incessant abuse and ranting...mostly, I skipped your
posts because they were devoid of *useful* debugging information.
> > NOT the application you are trying to compile.
>
> **How many times must I mention that I know that its not qmail ?**
How many times must you post on the qmail list mentioning that you know that
its not qmail?
> > If you are uncertain as to
> > how compilers work (even at a very rudimentary level, as is the extent of my
> > knowledge), you should ask on a OS-specific mailing list what you're doing
> > wrong. (You might even consider another line of work, or doing a whole lot
> > of reading on computers before you continue. Trust me, this will save you
> > headaches, even those given to you by ``rude'' people on mailing lists.)
>
> Geez you would no fun at a pep rally and please do not take work as an
> inspiration speaker!
Ha. A comedian.
I was just giving a little ``tough love'' advice that you need to invest a
whole lot more personal time in understanding how your system works in
general if you *ever* hope to be successful as a sysadmin.
> > Finally, if you *still* had questions on the RPM install (sorry I'm harping
> > on it, but I've used it extensively,
>
> what the rpm?
Yes, Bruce Guenter's qmail+patches RPM.
> >and I *love* it), you probably ought to
> > have read the page from which you downloaded the RPM.
>
> there you go again accusing me of not reading .. believe me this list is a
> last resort! Not only did I read the every doc I could find online I
> install with rpm -ivvh --test and read all that output.
Did you read the part about asking on the rpms mailing list about the qmail
RPMs? (That is, ask THAT list about the qmail RPMs, and NOT this one.)
> Ok you must mean the RPM I dunno man. After that pep talk are you going
> to try to sell me the latest version of MS Outlook?
Well, if you can't make it as a sysadmin, you can probably get work on the
comedy circuit...
> > Bruce and the others on that list would quickly point you to this list if
> > the problem were truly related to qmail, which it isn't.
>
> I don't quite understand that last bit ...
What, that the problem isn't related to qmail? Why don't you try compiling
something else and try to figure out how qmail is preventing you from
compiling THAT program as well? When you realize that qmail has nothing to
do with that problem, you might be able to figure out how qmail has nothing
to do with the problem you posted about.
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
During the Middle Ages, probably one of the biggest mistakes was not putting
on your armor because you were 'just going down to the corner.'
(Jack Handey)
