On Saturday, 05 January 2008, at 17:27:32 (+0100), Tony Earnshaw wrote: > Probably ;) I just downloaded and expanded rpm-5.0.0.tar.gz and, guess what? > > There's no spec file for any base rpm build in it. > > So I'd exhort: «skomaker bli ved din lest», or whatever that Norwegian > exhortation is in English. It involves sticking to what one is qualified > for. > > Not that I've any quarrel to pick with Jeff Johnson, of all people, but > this is ridiculous. For what it's worth, Jeff didn't create that tarball. Perhaps in future you should be less quick to attack people and point fingers, at least until you have all the facts. The tarball contains rpm.spec.in, not rpm.spec, because rpm.spec needs to be properly generated from a ./configure run to be accurate. Just because you blindly run "rpmbuild -ta" against a tarball and start complaining when it doesn't work does not constitute a flaw in the tarball. Either take the 30 seconds required to figure out the problem, or wait for someone with more initiative to create a set of binary RPM's for your distribution. Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <mej@xxxxxxxxx> Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am the one and only; nobody I'd rather be. I am the one and only. You can't take that away from me." -- Chesney Hawkes _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
