Re: Distribution making

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Lamar Owen wrote:

> > IMHO to *source* tree belong to matter for binary making only. A
> > distribution must be out of source.
>
> There are more files in the RPM set, for instance, than just the
> binaries -- there is the spec file, which controls the building of the
> RPM's; there is a patch file (to patch around some madness in the source
> that breaks the RPM package in some way); there are a couple of scripts
> (startup and upgrade); there is a man page for the upgrade script; as
> well as other things. Now, getting the *source* of the RPM distribution
> packaging into the tarball might be OK -- I'm certainly not advocating
> packaging binaries in the tarball!

I good known how act RH packaging. And I probably understant you.

> Therefore, a separate source RPM would not need to be distributed -- a
> person can just download the tarball, execute a single command, and have
> properly built RPM's for their system ready to install. Can't get much
> easier than that!

Yes, I know. But it expect that in the *common-original-source* must be
.spec file. Or not?

I'm not enemy of RH, I only not sure if is good "foul" original source.

Karel