Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] a cold wind bloweth

From: "Harry Zink/Netatalk List" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:16:24 -0700

> In the case of Linux, I think we should probably be creating
> RPMs, since version skew is so rampant.

Allow me to second that suggestion.

Harry

---

From: Simon Buchanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 08:13:47 +1200

> Allow me to second that suggestion.

Yes please.. this makes it alot easier!!

-- 
Simon Buchanan
Systems Administrator
New Media Communications
===================================================
[email-masked]           www.newmedia.net.nz

---

From: Roland Schulz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 15:09:41 +0200

> Yes please.. this makes it alot easier!!

Easier ... yes ... portable ... NO

There are quite a few distributions out that that don't have rpm and I for
myself would rather see a normal, ordinary tgz that even works on systems
that Redhat never has heard of ;) I don't see the big gain in using rpm ...
and as far as I noticed quite a few of the complaints about one year ago WERE
about badly configured/built rpms. Go figure ...

CU

Roland Schulz
[email-masked]

---

From: Magnus Stenman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 18:38:32 +0200

If you cannot use the RPM, compile and install from the
original tarball.

(you cannot make only an RPM, you always
 need to build that from a tarball)

The use of a parallel RPM (or pkg, or whatever) release is
just a good way of "spreading the word to the masses".

The benefits of RPM (or any good package manager) are many,
even for an experienced systems manager, and the fact that
bug reports came because of bad RPMs is just another good
reason to create "official" RPM specs.

/magnus

Roland Schulz wrote:
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature

-- 
 Magnus Stenman   mailto:[email-masked]   http://www.hkust.se

 Get it up, keep it up.  Linux -- Viagra for your PC

---

From: Patrik Schindler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 20:18:12 +0200

At 15:09 Uhr +0200 06.06.1999, Roland Schulz wrote:
>I for myself would rather see a normal, ordinary tgz

I fully agree. And it's easier to extract by hand.

>I don't see the big gain in using rpm ...

My thought: tgz for the source, rpm for precompiled binaries.
Guess why?

:wq! PoC

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:54:48 -0500 (CDT)

> I fully agree. And it's easier to extract by hand.

I think both of you look at this in a very limited way.  I think there
should be both.  There should be a tgz for those who don't mind untgzing
it and don't care to version what they install on boxes.  I'm like this
with my systems at home.  There should also be an rpm for those who don't
know how to untgz, don't want to mess up their system, and those who have
so many boxes under their control that they want to maintain some kind of
sanity with packages.  I'm the latter at work.  I know first hand what
kind of a mess ~1400 machines can be when being maintained with tgz's and
rdist.

Tom

---

From: Wenchi Liao <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 09:44:52 -0500

>should be both.  There should be a tgz for those who don't mind untgzing

I'm not sure why this is even an issue. No matter how it is done (rpm,
deb, etc), the source will(?) always be available in a tar ball for
people to grab. So those who do not like rpm/deb/whatever conventions
can grab the source and compile it.

The ``real'' issue, I think, is the ``authenticity'' of the precompiled
binaries. If I built an package for 32bit solaris, I would include the
des stuff and tcpwrappers. If I made it publicly available via anon.
ftp, am I potentially liable for export violations? Can people trust me
to build a base install of the latest netatalk+asun, and not monkey
around with the afpd.c to send passwords to a hotmail account? If a
canonical precompiled binary is to be made available, having authentic
builds done by trusted people is more important.

WL

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:47:43 -0500 (CDT)

On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Wenchi Liao wrote:

> If a

I think you mentioned two issues here.  TCP wrappers and etc. is one,
netatalk is the other.  Does one NEED tcp wrappers to run atalk on
Solaris?  If not it should not be a part of the canonical package.  It
would be nice to have a tarball and at least one popular package format
with precompiled binaries come from whoever is maintaining the source.  Of
course these should be signed (with pgp for example) by that canonical
source.

Tom