[ATrpms-users] DAHDI packages

[Anthony Messina]

On Monday 18 August 2008 03:09:13 pm Axel Thimm wrote:
> Why not do it with kmdls from the start? Later one needs to cater for
> upgrade paths from the non-kmdl packaging etc.

no real reason. i just don't have my system set up for that.  i only build a 
few packages and mostly have them customized for my needs -- zaptel, for 
example, removing the modules/tools i'll never use.

i do it mostly for a learning experience.

> Also w/o having yet looked into it, I assume that dahdi builds are not
> that much different than zaptel's, so one could probably just adjust
> the named in the zaptel specfile and use that as a first iteration
> (but as said these are just assertions made w/o having looked at dahdi
> closer, yet).

well, the build is easy and goes well.  their numbering scheme and release 
scheme is less than ideal for rpm bulding.  i do think it'll be a bit simpler 
after the release candidate portions are over as making the package names 
compatible with the fedora package naming guidelines will become simpler.

the spec file i sent has all the file list all the files that are built, so at 
least that my be of help.

-- 
Anthony -  http://messinet.com - http://messinet.com/~amessina/gallery
8F89 5E72 8DF0 BCF0 10BE 9967 92DC 35DC B001 4A4E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-users/attachments/20080819/f4f677b6/attachment.bin