On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 13:28 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Tuesday 19 December 2006 12:31, Craig White wrote: > >On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 11:58 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > >> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 07:42, Craig White wrote: > >> >On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 23:13 -0500, Ric Moore wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 07:41 -0500, Bob Goodwin wrote: > >> >> > Tim wrote: > >> >> > > Today, when I tried the link from the Stanton-Finley site, Sun > >> >> > > didn't redirect me to the latest, but stayed at the release > >> >> > > number the link was intended for (1.5.x). It's now jre1.5.0_10 > >> >> > > instead of jre1.5.0_8, so the paths in the examples to copy and > >> >> > > paste need correcting. That done, it worked, but the test page > >> >> > > wants to install a JRE plug in, even though it's apparently > >> >> > > working, and tells me I'm using an old version. The games > >> >> > > apparently work (not that *I* can play them). > >> >> > >> >> Mine did the very same thing until I closed my browser and started > >> >> it up again, then I passed with flying colors. I use the jre...bin > >> >> file instead of the rpm. As I've written, I stick it in /opt. Then > >> >> I chmod 755 the file (as root), execute it, it unpacks into it's > >> >> directory and then I link that directory to /opt/java. My links in > >> >> the mozilla / firefox and ~/.mozilla all point > >> >> to: /opt/java/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so > >> >> > >> >> Next time I update I need only change one link. Nifty... works. I > >> >> just don't trust java and rpm in the same breath, not yet. Ric > >> > > >> >---- > >> >with that kind of logic, why bother using an rpm distribution at all? > >> > > >> >Craig > >> > >> Because rpm needs help? A blasphemous thought now isn't it... > >> > >> rpm is being forked because the maintainers aren't responsive to such > >> issues. This may not be the ideal situation, but it sure beats doing > >> nothing. > > > >---- > >not at all blasphemous - but not necessarily knowledgeable either. > > Now you are pulling my trigger, grab your nomex underwear. > > >rpm has served you since RHL 5 as I seem to recall but I also seem to > >recall that when building packages, you always opt for ./configure && > >make && make install and I don't recall a single instance where you have > >made an effort to package anything yourself. > > Entirely true. Why? Because I have NDI how to go about writing a spec > file, and the ones I've looked at seem somehow to be unrelated to the > package they came from. That's what checkinstall wants you to do when > you run it I believe, but all I've ever put in that is a comment or two > plus the packages name. Not right, but generally it keeps the rpm > database current as to what's installed. ---- just an observation - it seems that you always quit trying once you get something working and don't show much curiosity for the details of why they worked and little inclination to go the extra step and get things to work the way things were intended. checkinstall was always a dirty hack for tarball installs Todd has already provided much information about RPM and the information has always been available to you and you have always known it to be there but you satisfied yourself once you were able to install software via ./configure && make && make install and never bothered with the details of rpm. This isn't an inference of anything other than that, it simply defines you and the efforts you are willing to go. It's likely that you could probably package amanda's snapshots using the spec file from the current Fedora amanda SRPM without any adjustment whatsoever other than the name of the tarball itself but you simply don't bother with it since you are able to get it working via the ./configure && make && make install method. I recognize that you and Rick are willing to install tarball packages in non-rpm ways just like the fact that both of you run GUI as root, but encouraging others to follow your footsteps probably should be accompanied by a warning that this isn't necessarily the recommended way of doing things. I guess someone needs to fill the vacuum left by Stanton Finley's departure for Ubuntu since he did provide a good road map for doing things in a sane, repeatable and recoverable manner. Finally, there does appear to be a problem with FC-6 (and apparently FC-5) and corruption of the which may or may not be an rpm problem but might be a berkeley db problem and I seem to recollect, we went through something similar in RHL 8.0 too. See bugzilla entry https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213963 Craig -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
