RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <rpm-users>

Re: Help: Installing RPM on Solaris 8

From: Tim Mooney <Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu>
Date: Wed 09 Apr 2008 - 22:15:38 CEST
Message-ID: <alpine.SOC.1.10.0804091438270.22782@dogbert.cc.ndsu.NoDak.edu>
In regard to: Re: Help: Installing RPM on Solaris 8, Eliyahu Skoczylas said...:

> I had kind of given up on 4.3.3, and started with 5.0.3 because I concluded 
> that the rewrite had cleaned up a lot of dependencies and cleared out cruft, 
> so that I hoped for an easier build.  Unfortunately, I'm a ways down the GCC 
> path with that.
>
> First BIG question:
> Do you think I'm better off
> - starting over with 4.4.9 an Sun's cc, as you've done,
> - keep going with 5.0.3 but restart on cc,
> - or just to keep plugging with 5.0.3 on gcc?

Based on the background you provided, it's hard to know what the right
decision is.  Most of the considerations are political, not technical.
If you're currently using Sun's Workshop compilers to build your
software on Solaris, using the same C compiler to build RPM and its
dependencies seems reasonable to me.  If there's a chance that both
Solaris and Linux will settle on using gcc for building your software,
then using gcc for building RPM and its dependencies seems to be the
way to go.  Either should work, I think.  Sun Workshop is available for
Linux too, but it's hard to recommend using something other than gcc on
Linux.

As far as what version of RPM to use, that depends.  It's my understanding
that RPM 5.0.3 should be mostly compatible with rpm 4.3.x and rpm 4.4.x,
though I think some of the default values for certain configuration
settings (macros) have changed.  This means you may need to make a few
tweaks to macro settings to get 5.0.3 to be maximally compatible with
4.4.x.  I don't know how much needs to be done, as I haven't used 5.0.3
yet.  Search the archives for the list, and include the word "policy" in
one or more of your searches.

Being you're already part way down the 5.0.3/gcc road, and that should
be a valid path, I would probably continue on that path.

> Risk Analysis:
> I'm over schedule right now, and I need to give a report to my manager 
> tomorrow about which way we're going to go.  (Dropping RPM is another option, 
> but that entails a whole different set of risks.)

I think using RPM for packaging is the right idea.  We've been using RPM
to package local software on multiple UNIX platforms and Linux for 10+
years, and it has worked well for us.

> 4.4.9 would best keep us in sync with the CentOS version 4.3.3 that another 
> team member has started playing with, and should be most interoperable in 
> terms of of .spec files.
>
> 5.0.3 would position us for the future, but require upgrading the Linux work, 
> too, and building a tool suite for the Linux team as well as the Solaris team.

>From what I've seen regarding Red Hat's stance on RPM, I'm skeptical
whether you'll ever see Red Hat use RPM 5.x, which means CentOS wouldn't
adopt it either.

Tim
-- 
Tim Mooney                                        Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu
Information Technology Services                   (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building                        (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164
Received on Wed Apr 9 22:15:47 2008
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.