[CentOS-docs] Re: Create page about rebuilding SRPMS and preparing RPM environment

[Alan Bartlett]

Ralph,

On 21/07/2008, Ralph Angenendt
<ra+centos at br-online.de<ra%2Bcentos at br-online.de>>
wrote:
>
> Alan Bartlett wrote:
> > The second reference you have quoted actually details how to obtain the
> > Kernel Sources and set up the build tree in a consistent fashion for
> > subsequent usage (covered in two other articles).
>
> And you cannot see the problem there?


The only problem *here* is that you misunderstand what I wrote (which you
quote, above).

So it is already there - in three
> different articles


Sorry Ralph, you are wrong. I said the above to point out that the article
Fillipe quoted (erroneously) in the following:

"to set up your
> environment to build RPMs and how to rebuild RPMs. This content today
> exists here:
>
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/I_need_the_Kernel_Source#head-a8dae925eec15786df9f6f8c918eff16bf67be0d
"

is referred to by two other articles in that How To sub-section.

- and has to be changed *everywhere* if some small
> aspect of rpm building changes.


Once what I have written is understood, your preceding comment is seen to be
quite incorrect.

Having to change that in *one* place and let all other places link to
> that is a much cleaner approach.


That is *exactly* what we do . . . and I cannot think of anything cleaner
than:

$ mkdir -p ~/rpmbuild/{BUILD,RPMS,SOURCES,SPECS,SRPMS}
$ echo "%_topdir %(echo $HOME)rpmbuild" > ~/.rpmmacros

>> Basically I think that pointers to the outside are not that good
> >> because they not necessarily contain CentOS specific information.
> >
> > The main link that Akemi and I currently have in Kernel Sources and
> Custom
> > Kernel is to the (maintained) CentOS specific Owl River page (
> > http://www.owlriver.com/tips/non-root/). The other link, in the Custom
> > Kernel article, (http://howtoforge.com/kernel_compilation_centos/) is
> > mentioned to strongly dissuade its use.
>
> Still: People tend to go to the CentOS wiki for finding information (or
> they are pointed to it). And I'd like to have information like that
> available *in* the wiki where more than one person can change it should
> the need arise.


Perhaps there is an error on my part by using the expression "main link"
when I should have said "main references" - for that is what they are,
references. These references can be removed *without* any loss of
information, etc. For this error, I apologise.

The other problem is that you seem to have ignored the rest of my message
dated 19 July - that neither attacked any person *or* idea - or the second
one of the same date. The English language is very precise when it is used
correctly. Problems do arise when it is misused or misunderstood.

Please review your reaction and response.

Alan.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20080721/98e4dda5/attachment.htm