On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 00:42, Jon Peatfield wrote: > > > Is it necessary to edit the spec from the rpm file to > > include the pacht? > > Usually yes, if the patch replaces one of the same name you *could* > avoid editing the specfile, but usually you at least want to change > the release version! > > The specfile contains a list of patches to apply to the source, if the > same (exact) patch applies as can be takes from another source (Debian > or RHEL fro example), then you just need to add the PatchN lines to > the specfile, change the package release and rebuild. And usually do you include the patch url into the spec file? Do you patch it before making into RPM or get rpmbuild to wget the patch and merge it? How would one know if we're "not" doing more harm than actually making a "good" package? > If the package is the same version (or "close enough") as in RH9 or > RHEA-AS3 (etc) then rebuilding from the update SRPM will usually give > you a package which works on RH73, RH8 or 9. To avoid later confusion > it is probably best practice to add something to the "release" version > to indicate that it is a rebuild for a different version by you (as > fedora-legacy does). One of my _ways_ in getting some updated stuffs is to use FC1's SRPMS and recompiling them on _my_ machine. (hoping that it's "Close Enough") to work. I've managed to get a _few_ packages this way, but... I'm not sure if I've been more help or harm. > > I've been a bit varied in my numbering scheme(s), but currently try to > change anything that looks like a redhat linux version-number to "80" > or "RHL80" and add a JSP in there to show they are my rebuilds. Never did understand epoch/release #. > The biggest pain is when the BuildRequires lines arn't complete; > e.g. you meet them only to find that the rpmbuild fails 'cos a needed > dependency is missing. I live in fear of it just producing a > "slightly broken" version which I won't spot 'til I've deployed it. Exactly.. > I'd be happy to make all the packages that I have for download (I have > to build them anyway), but they are *only* for RH80 and apparently few > people (on this list at least) use that. I still use it, if that's any consolation. My RH8 Box is still in service. Considered upgrading to FC2 or something though. Did an upgrade on my RH9 (laptop) to FC2, turned out, well, in a way, screwed. Couldn't get gdmgreeter to start properly. Something bout not recognising .png files etc. Startx works though. > I've still got no idea how to offer them up for fdl to look at/test > though. can you contact jesse keating and upload to the fedora-legacy site. It'll be Very helpful for ppl like me. (PPl that needs to get a clue on how to _properly_ admin a box. and I only have 1 box to admin!) > > Of course you might not trust me or my packages (why should anyone). hehe.. Why Not?? I'm pretty OK With 'other' ppl packages. I'm paranoid, but I'm running Linux, so I'm pretty "OK" with these packages being devoid of viruses/rootkits etc. (Since The box' not connected to the I-Net so.., some consolation I guess) > If there isn't a track kept of testing use then unless you "know" all > the testers you can't tell if they started (downloaded packages etc), > but never actually did anything. Not reporting problems doesn't mean > that there arn't any... Well, out of the updates from fedora-legacy which I've installed, all seems fine -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
