FreeTDS Development Group

[Brian Bruns <camber AT ais.org>]

Well this is the most compelling argument I've heard for spliting
them up.  Plus, if we are going to have debs split up, we might as well do
the same for rpms too I suppose.

The spec file would be darn handy though. ;-)

Thanks,

Brian

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Richard C. Greenwood wrote:

> I know it's been a little while since this was sent, but I'd like to
> offer my input anyway.  I've built rpms for freetds, DBD-Sybase, and php
> with Sybase support, in addition to many others.  I always prefer to
> have the -devel stuff split out.  Most of the time, the development is
> done on one machine and deployed on another.  The production machine
> doesn't need the development stuff, so it doesn't get installed.  I'll
> send my spec file if anyone is interested.  Your welcome to use it. ;)
> --Rich
> 
> Brian Bruns wrote:
> > 
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > In the past a number of people have submitted RPMs after the tarball
> > release was made.  Well this time we're going to do it up right.  I've
> > forced myself to learn RPM and I'll be building it at the same time as the
> > 0.52 tarball.
> > 
> > Which leads to my question.  There seems to be two schools on this, a
> > simple binary rpm, or one for binaries and a -devel one that has the
> > header files and other developer goodies.  Since, FreeTDS is basically
> > used by people building things on top of it (PHP, Perl, etc...) and thus
> > needs the headers to anything useful anyway, I'm leaning towards option
> > one. But, as always, I'm interested in dissenting opinions for why we
> > should adopt seperate packages.
> > 
> > BTW, anyone using FreeTDS with Python who could say a few words about it
> > for the User Guide?
> > 
> > Brian
> >