On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Nifty Hat Mitch wrote: > > No they don't. From http://www.washington.edu/pine/getpine/linux.html > > RedHat/Fedora RPM package built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 > > ????? But they do and it works fine here. From your URL. > > # rpm -Uvh pine-4.61-1.i386.rpm > Preparing... ########################################### [100%] > 1:pine ########################################### [100%] > # uname -r > 2.6.8-1.521 <--- FC2 current... Last time I tried using an rpm from this site (probably with pine 4.60) - it wouldn't install on FC1 (if I remember correctly - due to the krb5/libcom_err.so issue). I guess they fixed the rpm to somehow work both-ways (RHEL3 should be similar to RHL9) > My point is staying close to the source/home for packages that are not > under the watchful eye of the Fedora community can have value. If I have a choice (same version) I would prefer an RPM build on/for FC1 (to install on FC1) - to a common .rpm built for RHEL/FC1/FC2 > An important point is that the more locations you gather packages > from the more places you have to watch for updates as the result > of my "rpm -U" shows. Make sure you are on announcement lists > for foreign packages. Actually this would a reason for using dag's repositories - easily monitorable for updates using yum - thus fewer sites to monitor. The reason to monitor the primary-source is to get pacakges faster than the 3rd party sites. This might not work always. For eg: mozilla doens't have FC1/FC2 rpms yet for 1.7.3. (they just have 1.7.2) Satish
