On Thursday, 14 October 2004, at 15:04:02 (-0400), Matthew Miller wrote: > You're confusing difference in the code with actual difference. No, I'm not. What I'm doing is stating that there is no difference in code, and thus people are welcome to use whatever they like. > Clearly, there _is_ a difference, or else the original poster > wouldn't have had a complaint to begin with. The *original* poster said nothing about License:/Copyright:. That was brought up by someone else who chose to inject a completely off-topic rant into this thread which has since caused it to diverge into the current discussion. > The Red Hat RPM Guide. > > <http://www.pconline.com/~erc/rpm.htm>, check out page 168. Swell. Interestingly, a grep through the rpm CVS repository shows no occurance of his name anywhere that I can find. I think I'll wait to hear something from someone a bit closer to the code, thanks. > Also, the Fedora Extras packaging guide: > > <http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackagingHints#tags> That's Fedora's policy. So what? You act as though RedHat and Fedora are the only people who use RPM. > Maximum RPM, which you refer to, was never a great book when it was > new. And despite some updating, it's still not that great. I guess > this is one example. Given the names associated with the Maximum RPM edition I posted vs. the one associated with the aforementioned "Guide," I'll take the former. > And indeed, that is the case from the point of view of RPM itself. Precisely. > Likewise, you can put whatever you want in the %build and %install > sections. Sure, but if you want them to execute properly, they'd better be valid shell scripts. > You can not use a buildroot if you want. Indeed. The issue here is not with the use or non-use of a buildroot. The issue is with the arguably-erroneous default behavior of rpmbuild in the absence of the Buildroot: tag. If you really want to start arguing about poorly-named items in rpm, how about "buildroot?" It's not a buildroot at all; it's an INSTALL root. A buildroot would be a jail of some type in which the package is built, not installed. So why isn't it called "installroot" instead? Inertia. And in the end, it really doesn't matter if it's called "falafel." Its meaning to rpm is well-established and well-defined. > You can name your Mozilla 1.7.3 package > "fleebnork-2.15b.rc6.12.3.141-0.0.0.0-noarch.rpm" if you want. RPM > won't care. But that doesn't mean that you should. :) This is silly. Change package name, release, and version information changes the RPM header. License/Copyright does not. Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <mej@xxxxxxxxx> n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Remember kids, if there's a loaded gun in the room, be sure that you're the one holding it." -- Captain Combat _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
