Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 00:14 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 23:30, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
All I do is to tell you: If you want to avoid trouble, you're better off packaging packages as rpms on rpm based systems.I'll agree in general, but still don't see how a person who would have trouble with a stock compile/install is going to have that problem fixed. It just becomes a subset of the problems in building the packaged version.---- agreed but the projects that have some universality and activity to them will generally find someone who can provide the spec file to be included either as part of the tarball or can at least bundle an SRPM. Then as a last resort, there's always checkinstall (but I've never used it so don't go by me).
I tried getting and using checkinstall to see how it worked, and
it didn't work for me. It uses some replacement shared object
replacements, and they capture some information about what took
place during the install, at least in principle. But I found that
it didn't work for me. The docu on it mentions that it doesn't work
for some things. I don't recall now what I tried it on. Anyway,
it's a good idea which suffers in implementation, in my experience.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
