RedHat/SaMBa package distribution hassles.

[Max TenEyck Woodbury]

David Collier-Brown wrote:
> 
> Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
>> However, If you put out a package that is supposed to be a drop in
>> replacement for the Red Hat package(s), you will get fewer complains
>> if it has the same structure as the Red Hat package(s).
> 
>         Er, it isn't supposed to be...

OK, then call it something else. By mentioning a Red Hat distribution
explicitly, the implication is that it meshes with that distribution
easily. 

>         This is the same problem as repackaging samba
>         for solaris with i's layout-standard peculiarities,
>         for AIX, for SGI and so on: the degree to which
>         volunteers are available limits both the number
>         of ports and the number of minor variants.

OK. That's why I mentioned that I'd built such a beast, how, and
where I was in the testing process. I don't have solaris, AIX
or SGI so I can't help with those.

> --dave
> --
> David Collier-Brown,           | Always do right. This will gratify
> Performance & Engineering      | some people and astonish the rest.
> Americas Customer Engineering, |                      -- Mark Twain

  !!!!-----------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Applies here?

mtew