Guy Harris wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Maynard, Chris wrote:
>
>> ... but the following targets aren't:
>> make rpm-package
>> make srpm-package
>> make svr4-package
>> make debian-package
>> (and maybe more)
>>
>> Should they be?
>
> I.e., can, and should, we get into the business of making binary packages for
> OSes other than Windows and OS X?
>
> I don't know whether an Ubuntu buildbot could make RPMs - and I don't know
> whether generic RPMs work (as in "an RPM that'll work on any version of any
> Linux distribution that uses RPMs and that has sufficiently recent versions
> of the libraries Wireshark uses), so I'm not sure we could build "RPMs" as
> opposed to "RHEL/Fedora/blah blah RPMs" or "{pick other RPM-using Linux)"
> RPMs, much less whether we could build an RPM that works on "RHEL XXX and
> newer/Fedora YYY and newer/..." rather than RPMs for individual versions of
> RHEL/Fedora/etc.. I also don't know whether we can build x86 and x86-64
> binaries on the same machine, or whether we'd need two buildbots.
>
> I don't know what OSes other than Solaris would use SVR4 packages; we could
> build SPARC packages, but I don't know whether we could build x86 packages
> without a Solaris x86 buildbot.
>
Well, that's a bit unfair, isn't it? We neither ask of the Windows / OSX
buildbots to crossbuild these packages, so why of these? Lets first start with
their native packages, so we increase our coverage that way.
Thanks,
Jaap
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
