On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 00:06 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 16:42 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > > > >>Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> > > [snip] > > >>>Then package them as RPMs or find ways to make installing them > >>>sufficiently safe not to corrupt your installation. > >> > >>Whom are you instructing to do this? The hapless OP? He wants > >>help finding a toolset, and instead of helping him find it, > >>you are telling him he should find an RPM which may or may > >>not exist. > > > > Wrong. I am telling him: He shall write an rpm.spec. > > > > > >> If a mistake is made in the RPM, or if > >>the RPM is built by someone with malicious tendencies, > >>then there is nothing about RPM which will protect. > > > > > > An rpm is the result of a complex process, called "packaging". > > > > This is much more than "putting files into an archive" or a "./configure > > && make", much more ... > > I know what an RPM is. Here you are, admonishing me that > an RPM is a "result of a complex process" which a "newbie" > (see where you used that term below) should learn before he > can install software that someone else produced on his machine. > By this logic, no one can install software on his own machine > until either he convinces the developer to engage in extra > packaging work Once again, I say: You, want to build a source from sources, you, the installer, are better off writing an rpm spec for a package you want to install, instead of blindly running a "configure && make install", if you want to avoid trouble. If this is beyond your knowledge, you can use such situations as occasion to learn doing it. If you don't want to do it, take the situation as granted: The package is not available. > The stuff I build normally eventually winds up on > machines which don't even have an OS at all, let alone RPM, > and frequently have less than 1K of memory. And building a > cross-assembler or a cross-compiler which I want to run under > MSDOS, Linux, and Windows is not suitable for putting into an > RPM. I don't want to have to port RPM to MSDOS and maintain it > myself, thank you. We are talking about Fedora here. The tool to package and install packages on Fedora is rpm. Other target OSes and distributions have other tools and use other kinds of packages. These are completely off-topic, here. > What a parochial attitude. Use my tools or eat **** and die. You apparently haven't understood anything. If you want a package to a package for an OS, you have to take the OS's native package administration tools into account. The safest way is to utilize the system's native packaging - In case of Fedora this is rpm. If you don't, you're off-limits and on your own, independent of the OS. Ralf
