RedHat/SaMBa package distribution hassles.
morgan at orst.edu
Fri Feb 22 13:23:02 GMT 2002
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 12:08:32PM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 04:12:09PM -0500, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
> >>> OK, then call it something else. By mentioning a Red Hat distribution
> >>> explicitly, the implication is that it meshes with that distribution
> >>> easily.
> >> He's got a point there...
> >> What about replacing references to packaging/RedHat/ with packaging/RPM
> >> instead? That way it's "just an rpm" instead of a Redhat one...
> > > [BTW I prefer the single RPM model myself ;-)]
> > That's fine for SRPMS, but a binary RPM has binary dependencies -- the
> > ones marked as 'RedHat' have been built and tested against RedHat
> > systems specifically.
> > Steve Langasek
> > postmodern programmer
> Let's try:
> samba.combo-2.2.3a The whole enchilada (or samba-complete)
> samba-2.2.3a Just the server (requires samba-common)
> samba-client-2.2.3a Just the client (requires samba-common)
> samba-common-2.2.3a Stuff common to both client and server
> samba-swat-2.2.3a Just SWAT (requires samba server)
samba-2.2.3a The whole thing
samba-common-2.2.3a Common stuff
samba-client-2.2.3a Client stuff
samba-server-2.2.3a Server stuff
More information about the samba-technical