On 12/22/2011 04:33 PM, Jon Peatfield wrote:
A quick glance in the 5x/SRPMS/ shows no matching srpm to the binary
rpms in 57/{x86_64,i386}/SL/ though there is one in
5rolling/SRPMS/vendor/ which seems to match in NEVR but appears that
it might be the wrong place unless TUV added it between 5.6 and 5.7...
The reason that I'm looking at this is that for many years we have
been using alpine with a bunch of extra (Chappa) patches, and while
this new rpm is called alpine (with a larger version number!) it is
based on re-alpine which for various reasons does not include all
these existing patches - so from the point of view of our users would
be inferior.
After talking to Eduardo Chappa I get the impression that he
originally offered the patches to the re-alpine team but they didn't
want them. On the other hand they seem to claim that he refused them
permission. (sigh!)
Meanwhile re-alpine had an initial burst of activity and now seems
somewhat less active (last release was in October 2010), though there
might well have been commits since then...
Anyway is the alpine-2.02-2.el5.src.rpm from 5rolling/ the right one
to for me to look at? I've build a test rpm based on that with the
extra stuff we add in, and in trivial testing it *seems* to work for me.
(btw the specfile in that srpm sets alpine to use hunspell as the
spell checker, but none of my sl5 machines have that... though it is a
trivial change to aspell instead...)
You are correct, the alpine source from 5rolling is the right one. Not
sure why that didn't get pushed into the 57 source. I'll have to look
into that.
I'll have to check on the hunspell usage as well.
Pat
--
Pat Riehecky
Scientific Linux Developer
