2008/6/12 Jan Safranek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> That means somebody (I volunteer for RHEL and Fedora) will check current
>>> .spec in SVN, add proper Provides:, Conflicts, BuidReqs (with ifdefs where
>>> needed) and ensure it works on a distro.
>
> It took a little while, result is attached.
OK -
Thomas Anders wrote:
Jan Safranek wrote:
- we want one big package + separate -perl and -devel, as it is now, +
proper Conflicts: and Provides:, tailored to as many distributions as we
can.
That means somebody (I volunteer for RHEL and Fedora) will check current
.spec in SVN, add proper Prov
Jan Safranek wrote:
> During the monthly administrative meeting we agreed:
>
> - the [above] list looks a reasonable starting point (?maybe plus Mandriva?)
Does anyone feel familiar enough with Mandriva to help crafting a spec file for
it?
Otherwise, I don't see a chance to have it supported.
>
Thomas Anders wrote:
> My initial list of distros that *I* am sort-of-supporting (i.e. provide
> packages for via the openSuSE Build Service) is here:
>
> http://www.net-snmp.org/wiki/index.php/Third-Party_Packages
During the monthly administrative meeting we agreed:
- the [above] list looks
2008/5/9 Wes Hardaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> TA> Taking a step back, the major question is: are we willing to offer
> TA> packaging for other Linux distros than RedHat/Fedora?
>
> My view has always been: *we* should support all distributions *someone*
> is willing to support (linux or otherwise).
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 00:47:48 +0200, Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
TA> Taking a step back, the major question is: are we willing to offer
TA> packaging for other Linux distros than RedHat/Fedora?
My view has always been: *we* should support all distributions *someone*
is wil
Dave Shield wrote:
> I'd be inclined to suggest we start by drawing up a provisional
> list of which distributions it's worth considering providing
> packages for.
My initial list of distros that *I* am sort-of-supporting (i.e. provide
packages for via the openSuSE Build Service) is here:
htt
2008/5/8 Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Taking a step back, the major question is: are we willing to offer
> packaging for other Linux distros than RedHat/Fedora?
Ideally, yes.
I'd be inclined to suggest we start by drawing up a provisional
list of which distributions it's worth considering
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> I see a few choices that are acceptable:
>
> 1) provide our own list of packages and add conflicts lines
> 2) provide multiple spec files that better track the remote systems
>(possibly autobuilt from a single base template but split differently
>to match the differen
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 12:09:40 +0200, Jan Safranek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
JS> Question is, whether we want such Fedora-only dependencies in the .spec.
JS> And another question is what about other distros - quick look at
JS> Mandriva shows, that they have completely different packaging of
2008/5/6 Jan Safranek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Fedora splits Net-SNMP to many subpackages
> And another question is what about other distros - quick look at
> Mandriva shows, that they have completely different packaging of Net-SNMP.
Checking the "major" distributions (as listed in Wikipedia
Jan Safranek wrote:
> Fedora splits Net-SNMP to many subpackages - net-snmp (the server),
> net-snmp-utils (the clients), net-snmp-libs, net-snmp-perl,
> net-snmp-devel and net-snmp-gui (for tkmib). The rpms we distribute at
> SF.net download page are split differently and do not force removal o
Hi,
during discussion with Thomas Anders about the .spec file in SVN we
found out few possible improvements, which need more discussion on this
list.
Fedora splits Net-SNMP to many subpackages - net-snmp (the server),
net-snmp-utils (the clients), net-snmp-libs, net-snmp-perl,
net-snmp-devel
13 matches
Mail list logo
