Re: Building glibc 2.0.7 using hamm
At 19:49 -0500 1998-03-28, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>I now have the latest 2.0.7 pre-release version of glibc building packages
>successfully. However, because several programs were necessary that are
>not available in the distribution, glibc is currently, technically, a
>non-free package (because the ability to rebuild the source depends on
>packages outside of main).
By that measure, dpkg is non-free ;-).
>The makeinfo in the current tetex package is version 3.9, while the
>version needed by glibc must equal or greater than 3.11. The current
>version of texinfo (the upstream source for makinfo) is 3.12, which is
>the version I am using to build glibc.
The tetex-* 0.9 packages now in the distribution have texinfo 3.12.
>Personally, I would prefer that texinfo were packaged seperate from
>tetex-base and tetex-bin, so you didn't have to have all of tetex
>installed to build packages that need to create info pages.
I agree, tetex includes texinfo in the upstream source, but it is not
unreasonable in my view to exclude that from the binary package.
We already do this in the case of md5sum, which dpkg includes, textutils
also includes a md5sum, but the binary package doesn't include it
(personally, I find that a bad example, since the dpkg and textutils
'md5sum' appear to generate identical output).
>BTW, my recovering system is only missing pgp to be able to sign these new
>packages. How does a supposedly free US citizen obtain a debian version of
>pgp, or barring that, the source to said software?
non-us.debian.org is a good place ;-).
--
Joel "Espy" Klecker <mailto:jk@espy.org> <http://web.espy.org/>
Debian GNU/Linux Developer...................<http://www.debian.org/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: