RedHat/SaMBa package distribution hassles.

[Andrew Morgan]

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
>
> Understood.
>
> 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)

Why not:

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
samba-swat-2.2.3a	SWAT

	Andy