On Mon, 15 May 2006 14:09:06 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:26:10 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote:
CC'd. Mike, is using --enable-binreloc to build the binary RPM sensible? I found this post from 2004 about it:
Hmm I never got this mail! I'm not sure what's going on here, is email not getting through to me without me realising?
Sending with my newsreader failed because it was pointing at the wrong smtp server, but I got an error and resent it immediately via gmail (to your @navi.cx address). So, I don't know why you didn't get it.
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.autopackage.devel/677
It doesn't look like there would be a problem building the RPM with this turned on.
Should be fine. A replacement for binreloc is being designed that won't require modification of source code in future however so --enable-binreloc may disappear at some point.
OK, thanks.
By the way, now that autopackage has reached 1.0, are there any plans to stabilise the file-format? I'd like to get Zero Install to be able to run programs using them (as it already does for tar.gz, tar.bz2, zip, rpm and deb archives), but the headers of autopackage scripts contain this warning:
# Do not attempt to parse any information below this line # programmatically. The only supported interfaces this file exports # are the comments above (which may be in any order) and the command # line switches.
This is a shame, because the payload of an autopackage would often make an ideal Zero Install package too!
Thanks,