Re: debian packages for 4.04/02 ?

From: Gerhard Brandt <gbrandt_at_mail.desy.de>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:12:04 +0200

Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
> Hi Gerhard,
>
> On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 09:51 +0200, Gerhard Brandt wrote:
>

>>Hi,
>>
>>Now that the bug with with libAfterImage seems fixed,
>>are there fixed debian packages for 4.04/02 available somewhere?

>
>
> Not to my knowledge.
>
>

>>(I checked Christians homepage and the PAIPIX site but couldn't
>>find any)

>
>
> The packages on my web-site are terribly out of date (in fact, I should
> remove them to not cause confusion). I don't know about the PAIPAX
> site, and how often they update.
>
>

>>If not, is there a cvs tag that includes the fix?

>
>
> HEAD :-)
yes and this works i tested it, but i am talking about a real tag, and also the HEAD is ROOT 5.01.01.
I need the pro version which is 4.04/02.

>>Generally, what is the stance on including debian packages
>>in the ROOT release procedure? I would be very much in favour
>>of that.

>
>
> I second that. In general, I think it would be a good idea for ROOT to
> make RPM and Debian packages as part of the release procedure. It
> shouldn't be that hard. I've made a prototype page for apt-get (both
> Debian and Scientific Linux) which Fons has access to, and can look at
> to see how it's done. To make Debian packages, the ROOT team obviously
> need a Debian machine :-) I would suggest making packages for `stable'.
> BTW, Sarge is due to be released at any moment now!

My offer to compile packages refers to my system which is Ubuntu 5.04 If we are not offering the packages from the offical Debian archives, but from the ROOT pages, this should be ok or not? the gcc version is 3.3.5 for Ubuntu 5.04 and sarge.

cheers, g

> Perhaps it we (at roottalk) could take a vote on whether or not we'd use
> RPMs or Debian packages released by the ROOT team - all those in favour
> say `Aye' - no, please don't - we don't need 1000+ mail to roottalk
> saying `I want RPMs/Debs' :-) But it would good to know what the demand
> is.
>
> Yours,
>
Received on Wed Jun 01 2005 - 11:14:05 MEST