Subject: RE: SourceForge Files List

From: Michalowski Thierry <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:17:22 +0200

May I suggest another way to say it?

It is great that there exists such packaging methods as RPM, but it is even
greater there exist more than one!
RPMs are RedHat's contribution to these, but you would'nt assume everyone
out there uses RedHat as a GNU/Linux distribution, would you?
Otherwise you would better assume every computer in the world runs
MS-Windows...

So, I totally agree with the great idea to have up-to-date RPMs available.

I would just _as totally_ disagree to not have any access to any other form
of distribution of Netatalk! (Which, of course, would be as up-to-date as
the RPM version!)

Just to make the point clear...

My 0.02 EUR
--
Thierry Michalowski
Dev. Engineer - IT specialist

Edipresse Publications S.A.
33,av. de la gare
CH-1001 Lausanne
Tel: +41 21 349 46 26
Mobile: +41 79 611 79 05
Fax: +41 21 349 52 09

-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Zink/Netatalk List [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 10:04 PM
To: Matthew Keller
Cc: jeff b; Steve Freitas; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: SourceForge Files List

on 8/8/00 10:40 AM, Matthew Keller at [email-masked] wrote:

> One should shoehorn an "If you are using RPM's..." in there, as that's
> a nasty assumption. ;)

Could I suggest to start a separate mailing list on the sourceforge site,
aptly entitled "I hate RPMs". That way all those who feel that way can
hobble around in there and preach to their choir - and the rest of us can
feel free to not have to continually put up with that chorus everytime
someone uses the word 'RPM' in any post.

Harry
-- 
CAN'T SEE MAC IN CHOOSER UNDER RedHat 6.2: If you get errors starting
AppleTalk under RedHat 6.2 and Mandrake 7.1, you need to manually add "alias
net-pf-5 appletalk" to your /etc/conf.modules file.

---

From: Magnus Stenman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:22:46 +0200

Just keep up-to-date [rpm, deb, sun pkg, whatever] spec templates in
cvs, and include them in the tarball. A simple "make rpmspec" or
whatever will substitute versions, etc. readying the spec.

Then people who want [rpm, deb, pkg] files can build them, and
upload them to a contrib directory, or similar.

If lots of people want [platform x packages] they will be available.

Point is: never mind which package formats, the important part is
that they are available so one knows what the newbies/testers/whatever
are using, thus greatly decreasing the amount of unnecessary
questions and problems.

Of course (some) power users will compile their own, but that's
absoluteley OK.

/magnus

> Michalowski Thierry wrote:
> 
> It is great that there exists such packaging methods as RPM, but it is
> even greater there exist more than one!
> RPMs are RedHat's contribution to these, but you would'nt assume
> everyone out there uses RedHat as a GNU/Linux distribution, would you?
> 
> I would just _as totally_ disagree to not have any access to any other
> form of distribution of Netatalk! (Which, of course, would be as
> up-to-date as the RPM version!)
> 
> My 0.02 €

-- 
 Lodbroker support team

 Magnus Stenman  mailto:[email-masked]  http://www.lodbroker.com

---

From: Harry Zink/Netatalk List <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 10:11:49 -0700

> are using, thus greatly decreasing the amount of unnecessary

Agreed completely - I think all packages should be equally supported and
provided. My frustration stems from posting questions regarding RPMs being
used as anti-RPMs soapboxes, which seems to happen far too often.

> Of course (some) power users will compile their own, but that's

By all means, just as long as everyone recognizes that there is no single
valid way to distribute code, and that someone asking a valid question does
not give anyone the right to use that post as their personal soapbox.

Harry