Re: Where is ifconfig in SuSe 10.1?

David Bolt wrote:
Yes, just not as it is the ONLY answer to each questions. As if saying:
"Don't ask any questions. If you need to ask, you shouldn't do any
packaging."

The only problem with that sort of attitude is that it may stop some of
those that have shown an interest from pursuing it.

As has happend to me.

Actually, thinking about it, it can be the easiest thing to do. I can
also be a little more complex, all depending on just what the script
uses. If it's using things that are included in a default install, or
just commands built into e.g. bash, there's not much to do.

I had a couple of those. Basically I just wanted to package all my small
scripts. http://houghi.org/script/

If it's doing more complex things, and relies on other packages, then
those would have to be manually added to the Requires: otherwise rpm
will happily install a package where it doesn't know the script relies
on other, not yet installed, packages.

That was makeSUSEdvd.

Fortunately, I've not had anyone try and persuade me not to do any
packaging. And even if someone had tried, it wouldn't work. The primary
reason for me packaging things is that I package what I want, need, or
would like. That I let others benefit from my packaging efforts is just
my way of giving back a little of what I've been given.

That was my intention as well. Also to get to learn RPM more after a
while and later, when my knowledge would have been better, get software
on the build server and maintain several packages there.

Oh well. There are plenty of other things to do. :-)

houghi
--
houghi
Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done,
and why. Then do it.
-- Heinlein : Time Enough For Love
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Looking for "Terminate Event" in Windows Script Components???
    ... in the usual manner. ... This is a separate file ... right so would it have <script> tags referencing the "packaged" file ... The reason I ask is that there's a difference between "packaging" ...
    (microsoft.public.scripting.wsh)
  • Re: Where is ifconfig in SuSe 10.1?
    ... I once was also interested in learning about this, ... Packaging a script is about the easiest thing ... It wouldn't require a %build section, the %install section ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports (without touching localpkg)
    ... > This is what I currently do with slapd, ... > some very unfortunate consequences from a packaging point of view. ... If a script requires all mounts to be done, ... for the ports directory, it just goes as it should. ...
    (freebsd-current)
  • Re: MP3 to Ogg Vorbis
    ... Todd Zullinger wrote: ... That sounds like a packaging issue. ... I've never used the script myself, but it looks like the required perl ... we are talking of the same script. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Where is ifconfig in SuSe 10.1?
    ... also be a little more complex, all depending on just what the script uses. ... If it's doing more complex things, and relies on other packages, then those would have to be manually added to the Requires: otherwise rpm will happily install a package where it doesn't know the script relies on other, not yet installed, packages. ... see the questions that e.g. jdd asked in the packaging mailinglist. ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)