On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 13:39 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 12:08:22PM -0400, David Cary Hart wrote:
> Dave, I still wish that FC would revert to the FC3 src.rpm structure
> where the spec provided for a source rpm build. I suspect that the
> number of users who wish to customize their kernel is growing and the
> FC3 method seems much simpler (at least to me).
This has been rehashed a zillion times, but the short answer is that it's
not really any good, since the resulting source tree isn't necessarily
"clean" for the build architecture you expect. Tweaking the source rpm is a
bit more learning and a tiny bit more work upfront, but it makes management
easier (worth sometime) and produces more correct results (priceless).
Nah. The end result is the same. The difference is that making the
src.rpm in FC4 creates a source tree that can be moved to /usr/src.
Making the src.rpm in FC3 (with only source rpm selected in the spec)
creates a source.rpm
The issue is portability which is a tarball in FC4 vs an rpm in FC3. I
just think that creating an rpm is more consistent with the Fedora
approach.
--
* Eliminate Spam:
http://www.TQMcube.com/spam_trap.htm
* RBLDNSD HowTo:
http://www.TQMcube.com/rbldnsd.htm
* Multi-RBL Check:
http://www.TQMcube.com/rblcheck.htm