Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]

On 7/19/05, Dan Winship <danw novell com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 11:31 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On 7/19/05, Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com> wrote:
> > > The naming of the packages could also be such that there is no chance of
> > > conflicting with your vendor gnome, current version or later installed.
> >
> > I think Dan was suggesting (and certainly it is easier to produce)
> > something that isn't a package at all, just a tarball of binaries and
> > magic files, built into /opt/.
> Real packages have a few benefits:
>       * Can be installed with tools that the user is more likely to be
>         familiar with (and in particular, can be easily installed with
>         GUI tools on many distros)
>       * Easy to remove, easy to upgrade without worrying about there
>         being cruft left behind
> But they don't need to be "good" packages in terms of integrating with
> the rest of the distro. These are the sort of packages that can be
> produced in 10 seconds given a tarball and a perl script.

oh, oh. hadn't thought of that. Hrm, yeah, probably doable.
> > [Note that if done well, I don't actually think distributing packages
> > that conflict with your vendor GNOME is a problem, given proper
> > warning labels all over the place.]
> That requires more distro-specific smarts though, 

Oh, of course. That's why this task drove Jacob insane. :)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]