Re: [WBEL-devel] Re: openssl security update needed

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Joe Little wrote:

> seeing that RHEL doesn't support anything below i586, and targets  
> packages for i686, I would have just used that target.

And there are issues John's discovered, and others have pointed out, why 
packages should in general be built for i686, with only a very few 
exceptions being built *specifically* for i586.  In fact, I *think* you're 
supposed to even built *those* in some weird mode that does a "i686 
*except* for those funky instructions that don't exist on a i586" - some 
memory monitoring registers, I think.

> Second, one should now have to build out those directories. The  
> rpm-build package handles that for you.

> Finally, you can edit the .spec file to change organization, distro,  
> etc. before building...

Not the official word here, not that there really *is* one, but I think 
most users might have concerns if the package says "WhiteBox" as the 
distro, but isn't signed with the WhiteBox key...  We need to be able to 
say, I think "Built For WhiteBox Linux", to differentiate those parts that 
come as part of RHEL/WBEL.  Remember John's guiding principle - WhiteBox 
*is* RHEL, as close as legally possible.  Just as FreshRPMs, Dag, and the 
rest don't claim their packages are *part* of the distro, just that 
they're *built* on or with that distro in mind.

Speaking of, I need to find and offer out the LTModem driver module John 
got built for me.

-- 
					Jamey
				      ----<--<@
				[email protected]