[bt-devel] rpm

[Brook Humphrey]

Martin Gruner wrote:

>>for the current betas of bibletime the sword rpm's are required. I have not
>>yet compiled them in as static. And they also require the current cvs of
>>sword which is why they are there.
>>
>>If you would like in the next set I will compile it in static.
>>
> 
> I guess you are sure. AFAIK, if you leave the Makefile.cfg of sword cvs 
> untouched, only a static lib (libsword.a) will be created. If you then 
> compile bibletime, sword will be statically linked. Thats why the rpms would 
> not depend on sword except the modules.
> That is the way we should go in future concerning the rpms.
> For those compiling bibletime themselves we should supply a 
> bibletime.x.tar.gz and a sword.x.tar.gz. 
> What would source rpms be good for?


Well its like this I once did allot of work on rpm's a long time ago. In 
the meantime I sufferd a few major setbacks like wiping out my whole 
hard drive a couple of times. After having this happen to me I found it 
a blessing to have source rpm's in a few places rather than to have to 
recreate the work. It's taken a long time to recreate all that work and 
I still havn't gotten around to recreating all the modules into rpm's 
and they sorly need it but I have to start over from scratch again.

The last reason for source rpm's is if someone out there would like to 
compile it for their arcitecture say sparc or ppc they can get the 
source rpm's and it gives tem a good starting point. Maybe eventually I 
would be able to do this all myself but for now I don't even have access 
to these types of machines.

Sorry for being long winded and I hope this helps. God bless.

> 
> Please excuse me if I'm asking very simple questions, but I am still learning 
> and some others on this list may be too. Thanks for your patience.
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
>