There is the pc-os list, but I don't think there are that many
people that know about it or use it. Since I think the original
info potentially affects a bunch of people I think it is on-topic.
Maybe some of the latter messages (like mine) should have been private
e-mails.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 2:37 PM
Cc: ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Mark,
(to the group: perhaps unidata needs a wx-it list or something, so that
LDM can avoid these somewhat OT discussions. pc-os is there, but how many
others are there? I don't mind seeing them on ldm-users since so many
folks are here and it avoids having yet another list to subscribe to)
I have to defend RH for this one.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Mark J. Laufersweiler wrote:
>I am not a big fan of RPM's since once you build from source, you may
>break the dependencies. This in part due to RH not using the standard
>locations for files and configs.
What part of the LSB is RH not adhering to? bugzilla references?
>OpenSSH is a good example where RH did not release the RPM for the update
Are you aware that RH backports fixes? While the version number may not
be the latest, the CHANGELOG shows that the RPMS were patched.
http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html
>and I went on and installed it myself. No problems since it is an easy
>build, but then I found that I had installed the binaries in
>/usr/local/bin and not /usr/bin etc. More work cleaning up and changing
>the configure.
So, how is RH not adhering to the LSB by placing the SSH binaries in
/usr/bin ? Did you rpm -e openssh before building the source?
Later,
Daryl
/**
* Daryl Herzmann (akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx)
* Program Assistant -- Iowa Environmental Mesonet
* http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu
*/
