[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Problem with wajig rpm2deb command



Hi Roberto

Thanks for the very handy tip about checkinstall.  I have never come 
across it before and it does seem to neatly handle the problem of 
installing, querying and uninstalling utilities installed from source.  I 
see that it can even be used with rpms - I will pass that tip on to my Red 
Hat colleagues.

Regards

Jim Holland
System Administrator
MANGO - Zimbabwe's non-profit e-mail service


On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:

> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:05:15 -0500
> From: Roberto C. Sanchez <roberto@familiasanchez.net>
> To: Jim Holland <debian@mango.zw>
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Problem with wajig rpm2deb command
> 
> Jim Holland wrote:
> > Hi all
> > 
> > I was wanting to install a later than standard version of Midnight
> > Commander to solve some problems with the standard stable version
> > 4.6.1-pre3-3, so found I had a choice between a tarball, a patch and an
> > rpm at the following site:
> > 
> > http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/utils/file/managers/mc/snapshots/
> > 
> > I thought I would be adventurous and run the command:
> > 
> > 	wajig rpm2deb mc-2005112320-1.i386.rpm
> > 
> > It successfully created a .deb package which installed fine.  However I
> > soon realised that that many of the files in the rpm (eg /usr/share/mc/*
> > for example, as well as others) were missing from the .deb package.  Is
> > there any way round this problem other than going back to the tarball?  Or 
> > is rpm2deb still somewhat experimental?
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Jim Holland
> > System Administrator
> > MANGO - Zimbabwe's non-profit e-mail service
> > 
> 
> Please see my reply to your other message about getting a newer version
> for Sarge.
> 
> In general, it is a Bad Thing(TM) to turn packages from one format to
> another.  You are probably better off getting the upstream source and
> then compiling it and installing it with checkinstall.
> 
> -Roberto
> 
> -- 
> Roberto C. Sanchez
> http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
> 



Reply to: