On Wed, Apr 09, 2008, Tim Mooney wrote:
> In regard to: Re: Help: Installing RPM on Solaris 8, Jeff Johnson said (at...:
>> While I'd rather not venture into political quagmire's, I believe
>> that history shows that Solaris support has always been
>> better with the rpm5 code base than with the RedHat rpm.org code base.
> Once one got all the appropriate dependencies to install on Solaris,
> getting rpm 4.4.9 to build wasn't bad. Since RPM 5.0 is based on the
> 4.4.9 code base and Ralf has been using 5.0.x for OpenPKG, I would indeed
> expect that Solaris support would be no worse in 5.0.x, and very likely
RPM 5.0 and 5.1 really build out-of-the-box on mostly all Unix platforms
I had access to (Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc) with both GCC and non-GCC
(Intel C/C++, Sun Studio, etc) compilers. During porting RPM 5 I even
used "strange" combinations like Sun Studio under Fedora or Intel C/C++
(actually Linux compiler) under FreeBSD, etc.
So, when it comes to portability I can only strongly recommend to use
RPM 5 and not RPM 4. OpenPKG had to apply lots of workarounds to its RPM
4.2.1 in order to get it building and working under non-Linux platforms.
With RPM 5 all(!) those hacks are now fully gone.
> I haven't really paid any attention to what Red Hat is doing with their
> branch of RPM, but I'm under the impression that it's based on an earlier
> point in the code base -- 4.4.2 comes to mind. I would definitely expect
> that their fork would be harder to compile on Solaris than the code that's
> based on 4.4.9.
Yes, definitely. RPM 4.4.x already included a bunch of portability
fixes and with RPM 5 we really made RPM very portable. RPM 4.4.2 is as
unportable to non-Linux platforms as RPM 4.2.1 (the old version OpenPKG
uses) was. So, for using RPM under Solaris I can only recommend to do
oneself a favor and already start over with RPM 5 ;-) RPM 4 can bite one
very much when it comes to portability...
Ralf S. Engelschall
Received on Thu Apr 10 14:22:56 2008