On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Gene C. wrote: >> >It has been a long, long time since I last rebuilt the XFree86 rpms ... at >> >that time it did not use buildroot. >> >> Wow, that predates my existance at Red Hat. ;o) > >Yes, and it was a real socker the first time I did it. I just >did not expect building an rpm would wipe out the existing >install. That tought me to look at everything real carefully >before I built anything. Of course I not do all builds as >non-root so it is not as dangerous. IIRC, this was the RHL 5.n >era. Yep. I preach to people as often as possible to never ever under any circumstances ever compile an rpm package as the root user. There is just no sensible reason to do so, and the risks of damaging your system are very high. The majority of freely available rpms out there are have poor spec files which do all kinds of bad things. That is mostly due to the inexperience of the author of the spec file in creating "good" rpm packages. Of course, it is largely debateable why this is so, but that's not really the point I'm trying to create. ;o) The bottom line merely being to not trust *any* src.rpm packages as the root user, not even Red Hat supplied src.rpms. You CAN inadvertently destroy your system merely by running "rpmbuild --rebuild". Been there, done that. Of course, I'm just amplifying what you've already said. ;o) >> You don't. I have binary rpms I can make available if need be. >> They're always available for all architectures RHEL3 is available >> for. Just might need to ask if they're not pushed to rawhide or >> on my ftp site. I don't push them all unless someone wants them >> specifically, because my disk quota will overflow if I do it all >> the time. > >You might consider pushing x86_64 versions out if you push a new >i386 version into updates/testing or updates. That was my >reason. My script pushes x86, x86_64, and ppc by default I think. Rawhide however, I have no idea, and I have no say in what gets pushed there. >I am trying to make sure that when FC1 x86_64 final comes out >that the final plus any updates work. So far, XFree86 looks >fine (except for a distribution issue of not having >XFree86-Mesa-libGL for the i386 installed and that has been >bugzilla'ed). Not sure about this libGL issue you're refering to. Haven't heard about that. There are various x86_64 things that need updating in my packages, but I'm not sure what the schedules are for the x86_64 stuff, or even how to find out. There is at least one XFree86 critical update that is needed for sure. >> Enjoy the speed. ;o) > >Well, a big THANK YOU for your efforts. No prob. In the future things will improve even further as the XFree86 packaging gets split up into pieces. Then one only need rebuild the necessary pieces that have changed. I'm looking forward to that. ;o) -- Mike A. Harris _______________________________________________ xfree86-list mailing list xfree86-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/xfree86-list IRC: #xfree86 on irc.redhat.com
