On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 13:39 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 12:08:22PM -0400, David Cary Hart wrote:
> > Dave, I still wish that FC would revert to the FC3 src.rpm structure
> > where the spec provided for a source rpm build. I suspect that the
> > number of users who wish to customize their kernel is growing and the
> > FC3 method seems much simpler (at least to me).
>
> This has been rehashed a zillion times, but the short answer is that it's
> not really any good, since the resulting source tree isn't necessarily
> "clean" for the build architecture you expect. Tweaking the source rpm is a
> bit more learning and a tiny bit more work upfront, but it makes management
> easier (worth sometime) and produces more correct results (priceless).
Nah. The end result is the same. The difference is that making the
src.rpm in FC4 creates a source tree that can be moved to /usr/src.
Making the src.rpm in FC3 (with only source rpm selected in the spec)
creates a source.rpm
The issue is portability which is a tarball in FC4 vs an rpm in FC3. I
just think that creating an rpm is more consistent with the Fedora
approach.
--
* Eliminate Spam: http://www.TQMcube.com/spam_trap.htm
* RBLDNSD HowTo: http://www.TQMcube.com/rbldnsd.htm
* Multi-RBL Check: http://www.TQMcube.com/rblcheck.htm
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
