[CentOS] Building rpms

[Craig White]

On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 12:53 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 11:28 -0500, Matt Hyclak wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:16:08AM -0500, Bowie Bailey enlightened us:
> > > From: Matt Hyclak [mailto:hyclak at math.ohiou.edu]
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:05:48AM -0500, Bowie Bailey enlightened us:
> > > > > 
> > > > > I found an rpm from Fedora Core Development on RPMFIND.  Will this one
> > > work
> > > > > with Centos, or should I grab the source rpm and rebuild it?
> > > > 
> > > > Rebuild from src.rpm. 
> > > 
> > > Ok, tried that...
> > > 
> > > $ rpmbuild --rebuild openldap-2.3.11-3.src.rpm
> > > Installing openldap-2.3.11-3.src.rpm
> > > error: Failed build dependencies:
> > >         bind-libbind-devel is needed by openldap-2.3.11-3.x86_64
> > >         libtool-ltdl-devel is needed by openldap-2.3.11-3.x86_64
> > > 
> > > # yum install bind-libbind-devel libtool-ltdl-devel
> > > Setting up Install Process
> > > Setting up repositories
> > > update                    100% |=========================|  951 B    00:00
> > > base                      100% |=========================| 1.1 kB    00:00
> > > addons                    100% |=========================|  951 B    00:00
> > > extras                    100% |=========================| 1.1 kB    00:00
> > > Reading repository metadata in from local files
> > > Parsing package install arguments
> > > No Match for argument: bind-libbind-devel
> > > No Match for argument: libtool-ltdl-devel
> > > Nothing to do
> > > 
> > > Where do I find these two?  Do they have different names with CentOS,
> > > or do I have to get them from elsewhere?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Bowie
> > 
> > You'll probably have to get them from the FC Development repository as well.
> > You're probably looking at the bind and libtool srpms, if I had to guess.
> > If you're lucky, those two won't depend on too much else, otherwise you'll
> > spiral quickly into dependency hell.
> > 
> 
> 
> What is the purpose of the LDAP upgrade ... if it is security you are
> worried about ... those get in there.
> 
> See this:
> http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html
> 
> When you start changing major components, you greatly reduce the
> stability of CentOS for yourself ... and you ruin the system
> interoperability.
----
I pretty much agree with that last statement - and could never conceive
of getting an rpm of openldap/servers/client from Fedora and rebuilding
it on RHEL/CentOS without it being really really tough to build and not
breaking anything.

I think the general consensus on openldap message base is to build
everything in /usr/local from source, which in my case, I built db4
(4.2.52+patches), kerberos, cyrus-sasl, openssl and then finally
openldap - all from source and it wasn't nearly as hard as I feared and
left RHEL stuff alone and didn't break anything. The information that I
used to do this all came from Quanah's web pages at Stanford...
http://www.stanford.edu/services/directory/openldap/

Perhaps a less painful method might be to use Buchan Milne's rpm's which
would do much the same and though they seem to be created for Mandriva,
apparently can build/install on RHEL (sorry, I don't have a URL for this
but you can either post to openldap list or search their archives).

Lastly, perhaps the least painful method of all is the pretty much
turnkey packages available from symas... <http://www.symas.com>

Now, generally Red Hat back port works well enough but if you are going
to make RHEL/CentOS the base of a large directory service... 2.0.7-20
(CentOS3) and 2.2.13-4 (CentOS4) simply don't cut it for a number of
reasons. I stick with them on most of my installations because the
number of users and the extent of the demands that I put upon ldap are
pretty minimal but if you are going to have a substantial investment in
time/energy in ldap, fahgettibouddit...install current.

Recognize that 2.2.30 (I believe) is still the latest categorized
'stable' - 2.3.11 (and I think it is now up to 2.3.12) is discussed and
sometimes casually referred to as 'stable' - I don't think that it has
'officially' been designated so.

Craig