Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754919AbXKZPUJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:20:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750959AbXKZPTz (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:19:55 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]:17157 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751279AbXKZPTy (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:19:54 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=pROAW4cx1mpeLB/lIBuaNQElR1/RaDpcccHe9IzZXpdfTM7hTsCgAKYXw8x633hzfszZSFy3tgE+sCBCedJErsjJXMM0GNAn/e2x5/TiD0j5Av4bHXUJPYV00IbYhw4QyGE1am1KH6kIQCgeV4oS/h0j8+alS9J+mKtHiDU2ZMs= Message-ID: <2c0942db0711260719t4468807bm85fcc8cc4ebd138@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:19:52 -0800 From: "Ray Lee" To: "Robert P. J. Day" Subject: Re: can support for "rpm"-based package building just be dropped? Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <2c0942db0711260658j5ce017e7ucce4c373748ed7b7@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: ca72976d1b68785f Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1699 Lines: 41 On Nov 26, 2007 7:12 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Ray Lee wrote: > > > > > On Nov 26, 2007 12:54 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > on current systems, "rpm" no longer has build capability and will > > > > fail thusly: > > > > > > > > rpm --target i386 -ta ../kernel-2.6.24rc3g2ffbb837dirty.tar.gz > > > > --target: unknown option > > > > > > > > so it would make more sense to just require "rpmbuild" on the > > > > machine, would it not? > > > > > > Only on current machines. You'd break building kernel RPMs on older > > > systems that don't have rpmbuild installed. So the change wouldn't > > > fix anything, and would break some non-zero number of setups that > > > are currently working, making the change a guaranteed net loss. > > > > > > A patch that added version checks against rpm and whinged > > > appropriately about needing rpmbuild would likely be accepted, > > > though. > > > > yes, i suspect that's the right answer. > > > > rday > > BTW, is there someone who knows what the relevant version is of "rpm" > that stopped incorporating the packaging functionality? i'm a bit > swamped today but if someone wants to whip up a patch and get it in > before the next major release, that would be useful, i would think. > > in short, can someone else handle this? :-) I'm afraid I'm all .deb here, so no go for me. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/