rsharpe at ns.aus.com
Sun Jul 21 12:57:02 GMT 2002
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
> 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.
Hmmm, I was responding to your complaint that BuildRequires should be
updated and the 'implied' claim that we, the Samba team, should provide
information about the minimum 'packages' required to build Samba.
I am sorry for taking us off on a tangent, because I addressed the wrong
issue. However, I have stronger statements to make below.
Samba runs on a wide variety of operating systems, one of which happens to
be RPM-based Linux systems (as well as deb-based Linux systems and
The BuildRequires field seems to be to only be relevant to a source RPM.
Why even bother to put it into the SPEC file for the binary RPMs we
supply, because it represents a lot of work that must be checked each time
we release a package for a different Linux distro. Some of those distros
were packaging the same thing in different places and had slightly
different names as well.
To provide that sort of information for all the platforms that Samba runs
on would be a large undertaking, and to a certain extent, a waste of time
as well, because things change.
Also, none of us have a huge amount of time on our hands, so we focus
on the things that seem relevant.
If someone is having problems with the build environment, they are
expected to be able to sort some of it out themselves, especially getting
all the required tools assembled. I run into similar problems from time to
time with Ethereal; it is an occupational hazard and I generally muddle
However, if you would like to supply some basic information based on your
experiences, I am sure it will be accepted.
Finally, while you might already know this, a script that can find which
'uninstalled' package a particular file comes from is:
for f in *.rpm
if [ "`rpm -qlp $f | grep <some string>" ]; then echo $f; fi
You will, of course, have to run this for all of the CDs :-( and there
might be subtle errors in the above. I typed it in from memory.
Richard Sharpe, rsharpe at ns.aus.com, rsharpe at samba.org,
sharpe at ethereal.com
More information about the samba-technical