X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs- From: johan19 AT idt DOT net Message-ID: <19980915084322.A23891@sophia.idt.net> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:43:22 -0400 To: beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl Subject: Re: libc-5.4.22?!? Mail-Followup-To: beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl References: <199809150935 DOT CAA03343 AT Midnight DOT Hacking DOT in DOT the DOT land DOT of DOT Kalifornia DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: ; from Dr H. T. Leung on Tue, Sep 15, 1998 at 12:58:02PM +0100 Sender: Marc Lehmann Status: RO Content-Length: 3004 Lines: 62 On Tue, Sep 15, 1998 at 12:58:02PM +0100, Dr H. T. Leung wrote: > Look, I don't understand why this has deteriorated to a debate on libc5 vs > libc 6 and Redhat vs Slackware. There *is* a Redhat libc-5.4.46 package > (which I told the original poster right away after the posting) at: > > ftp.redhat.com/pub/contrib/i386/libc-5.4.46-1rh42.i386.rpm > > (or at least that's what my nearest sunsite mirror said where it is: > http://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/ > Mirrors/ftp.redhat.com/pub/contrib/i386/libc-5.4.46-1rh42.i386.rpm) on a libc5 redhat (version 4.x), you can simply get the latest source of libc5 and the source rpm for the old one. hack away at the spec script and roll your own. with a libc-5.4.46 binary you can do the same on redhat 5.x (building libc-5 on redhat 5 could be slightly harder than for redhat 4). > Personally I think people who said Redhat/Suse/whatever being better than > Slackware/whatever are snobs. While Redhat is no doubt easier to install > and maintain, Slackware no doubt have less of the "bleeding-edge" > developements, you can run a perfectly functional system with either, if > you know what you are doing. After all, it is the same kernel, and same > mostly-GNU-based software suite. yes. distro-wars are stupid and only help microsoft. still, i cannot resist correcting some of your misconceptions. since rpm is one thing which *does* differentiate between the distributions, entertaining arguments about it may be worthwhile. > I actually don't like the Redhat "rpm" concept - when I install something, > I want to know exactly where every component goes. which, if you knew *anything* about what rpm does, is *exactly* what rpm is keeping track of. you can list all the files *before* and after installation, their positions and type (config &c) by using rpm to query. as a builder of my own rpms i usually find it a considerable chore to track down all the places `make install' sticks them. i mean, if you prefer raw source in tar.gz that's fine. just don't totally fail to grasp what rpm is and then spout off about it. > It is probably a bit > far-fetched to compare RPM's with the MS Install-Shield; but then there > are people who thinks anything GUI "clickable" is better than > non-clickables, and anything hidding all the details is better than > letting you know what is happening; and anything rpm is better than > tgz/configure. Suit yourself. If you can make the computer works for you. a *source* rpm contains the source .tar.gz file. it also contains scripts to install it on your system. (consider the binutils where encaps got removed - rpm scripts removed these, all the complainers were using raw tar balls) furthermore, it has a list of files which will be installed. with source rpms you get *all* that a raw tar.gz source can offer *plus* extra help in installing. once you compile it, the rpm automatically picks up on the required shared libraries. -- Johan Kullstam [johan19 AT idt DOT net] Don't Fear the Penguin!