FreeTDS Development Group

[Paul Rensing <prensing AT cimetrics.com>]

I think that splitting the RPMs is a good thing. I am not sure about the
"doc" RPM, but the others make sense. Most library packages separate the
development ("devel") package from the main libraries, so that you don't
need the headers, etc. if you are not compiling. Also, putting the
unixODBC drivers in a separate package is appropriate, since not
everyone wants or needs the ODBC code (or maybe they use iODBC).

BTW, iBiblio's FTP server reports the RPM files as being of type
"audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin", presumably because of a clash of file
extensions. Anything to be done about that?

        Paul Rensing



On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 08:57, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:18:36 -0500, "James K. Lowden"
> <jklowden AT schemamania.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Freddy, I didn't post your rpm for rc1, sorry.  When you have one ready
> > for rc4, I'll get that up there ASAP.  Same for the .deb, Steve.  
> 
> Freddy sent me the RPMs and they are posted on ibiblio.org. I haven't
> updated the links on freetds.org yet.  
> 
> There are now 5 (!) rpms:
> 
> freetds-0.61-1.src.rpm
> 
> freetds-0.61-1.i386.rpm
> freetds-devel-0.61-1.i386.rpm
> freetds-doc-0.61-1.i386.rpm
> freetds-unixodbc-0.61-1.i386.rpm
> 
> Is this considered a good thing?  I can understand src/i386, but why have
> the binaries broken into 4 parts?  It seems very fragmented for such a
> simple project.  
> 
> In any case, I think we need some documentation for the purpose and
> contents of the RPMs.  
> 
> --jkl
> _______________________________________________
> FreeTDS mailing list
> FreeTDS AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/freetds
-- 
Paul Rensing <prensing AT cimetrics.com>
Cimetrics, Inc.