[Mailman-Users] Red Hat FHS packaging
cycling at axelrod.plus.com
Wed Jun 15 09:05:41 CEST 2005
I acknowledge Redhat do a good job with FHS and
do interface with the community.
>> Is there guidance in the standard mailman distributions
>> on how to build for FC starting with a tar.gz ?
> According to their particular filesystem structure? No. That is
> something that RedHat would need to produce -- and support.
This was my point - I think if you are going to take a package
off on a branch for some specific use that would be a good
thing to do.
I don't want to knock Redhat at all - the policy is
still worlds better than well-known vendors and it
does all work well.
I'm just lamenting my own decision to run with FC3 because
one effect is a partial isolation (or extra work) and
I'm pretty well locked in now. If john's point that
standard build's work without problem on FC (albeit
without keeping to the FHS) then it won't in general be
an issue except that that fact is not easily apparent.
Having grown up with slackware over a few years I
personally find RH has a slight flavour of OS'es
pedalled by those well-known vendors (*only* slight).
Yes, I suffer from that point that John made that
users tend to get upset when things are not
where they expect them to be. Even more so
when its hard work finding them.
A plea to Redhat - if you are going to purloin
mailman and do it with FHS then a file that
accompanies the mailman distribution that explains
how to do a manual build that conforms to the way
RH does it would be very useful - a "how to manually
build for FC£ (which ends up with files in the same
places as FC has them). Since you need to
be following the development and dealing with
that issue anyway I can't see that it is any
extra work to write up the method and keep that
up to date and contributed to the mm distribution.
As its not extra cost the only reason I can see
that RH would NOT do that is to lock persons in
More information about the Mailman-Users