Max TenEyck Woodbury
mtew at cds.duke.edu
Sun Jul 21 11:36:01 GMT 2002
Richard Sharpe wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
>> Richard Sharpe wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
>>>> I was trying to build 2.2.5 from sources on a RedHat 7.3 system. It bugged
>>>> out after the configure. This is probably because some of the header files
>>>> it expects are not present. (Disk space is tight on this particular machine
>>>> and I've tried not to install anything I don't have to on it.)
>>>> Two questions:
>>>> Q1: What packages are required to build SaMBa that are not also required to
>>>> run it?
>>> GCC and glibc-devel come to mind.
>> Yep, but I already had those installed, so there are other requirements. I
>> did a 'rpm -qR samba-common' on a RH 7.3 system and pulled in the '-devel-'
> Hmm, are these the RedHat Samba RPMs?
> If so, we have no control over them. RedHat does their own thing and does
> not seem to consult us too much.
I really hate to say it, but you're missing at least part of the point. Yes,
the SaMBa RPMs I have installed at the moment are the RH ones, but I'm trying
to build the samba.org ones, which you DO have control over. RH follows their
own weird in structuring, but the dependencies of the different packages are
going to be similar if not identical. Installing the -devel- packages did
get me past the 'configure' stage, like I said before, so it has worked to
at least that extent.
I'm also trying to replace the RH packages with the samba.org ones. Since I
have a 'mirror' script that had already pulled the 'tarbal', I went with what
I had on hand rather than down-load more stuff. I ran into a problem and gave
you guys a shout to let you know about it. My understanding is that that is
part of the normal open-source QA system. Since I didn't record quite as
much information as I should have, I was describing what I've done so someone
else could check my results. I'm still working the problem, so I'll probably
have more to report later.
I don't post often, but I do follow this list, so I know something about the
on-going dispute about package structures, I can see both points of view, and
it comes down to a matter of style, history and goals. So please don't duck
the issue by starting up the old 'RedHat does it their own way' smoke
generator. That is really irrelevant to the problem I reported.
More information about the samba-technical