On Friday, 22 June 2007, at 15:10:29 (-0600), Bob Proulx wrote: > In this case of people trying to use rpm for closed sourced projects > then usually the files will be installed by methods outside of rpm. > So from your perspective, yes, they will appear "out of the blue". > Of course this is frowned upon by free software advocates because it > prevents the source from being distributed. But as far as producing > a workable rpm file this is okay from a technical perspective. Only if you consider "seat of the pants" builds technically acceptable. > It is against most software rules/guidelines for distributing > packages with a distribution (e.g. Fedora) but not against rpmbuild > rules. The rpmbuild program allows this fine. The rpm process is > okay with this. It is a philosophical issue and not a technical > one. Ditto above. > Of course doing it this way is fine. But it is not required. For those who feel reproducable, consistent builds are not desireable or technically advantageous, I'm sure this is correct. > Among other things bundling a binary blob in like that allows a > .src.rpm file to be produced that could rebuild the binary .rpm > file. But because the source is not really source the .src.rpm file > is not really useful. I'm starting to feel like a broken record here. > It could not be used to port the code from 32-bit to 64-bit for > example. Therefore IMNHO in this type of case it does not really > add anything over just having the files appear out of the blue. Couldn't disagree more. 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) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Did you really have to die for me? All I am for all You are because What I need and what I believe are worlds apart." -- Jars of Clay, "Worlds Apart" _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
