7:40 a.m.
I have run into a problem when trying to package webmin for Fedora 11+.
Webmin is a noarch package but it contains some binary files
(effectively firmware) it is a dll that gets downloaded onto Windows
based browsers.
So how do I tell rpmbuild (i.e. what specfile command) that this is
firmware and not a binary file!
--
Howard Wilkinson <howard(a)cohtech.com>
Coherent Technology Limited
8:04 a.m.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Howard Wilkinson wrote:
I have run into a problem when trying to package webmin for Fedora
11+.
Webmin is a noarch package but it contains some binary files
(effectively firmware) it is a dll that gets downloaded onto Windows
based browsers.
xenroll.dll? It's hardly firmware - copyright microsoft and almost
certainly not redistributable. The safest option is probably to
remove it completely (from the source tarball too).
And if you haven't seen them already, I'd also recommend taking a look
at the previous review requests for webmin - it's not the easiest
thing to get packaged properly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=184080
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468570
--
Iain.
2:24 a.m.
Already made the decision to remove the file when building and have
spoken to Jamie Cameron, he will stop distributing these in his
packages.
But that was not really what I was after. This feature of detecting
binary files in noarch packages seems to be fairly new. I was wondering
how I can tell rpmbuild to include such files in an rpm package
explicitly?
On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 15:04 +0200, Iain Arnell wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Howard Wilkinson wrote:
> I have run into a problem when trying to package webmin for Fedora 11+.
> Webmin is a noarch package but it contains some binary files
> (effectively firmware) it is a dll that gets downloaded onto Windows
> based browsers.
xenroll.dll? It's hardly firmware - copyright microsoft and almost
certainly not redistributable. The safest option is probably to
remove it completely (from the source tarball too).
And if you haven't seen them already, I'd also recommend taking a look
at the previous review requests for webmin - it's not the easiest
thing to get packaged properly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=184080
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468570
--
Iain.
--
Howard Wilkinson <howard(a)cohtech.com>
Coherent Technology Limited
6:45 a.m.
It has to been clean out of the source.
--
Josephine "Fine" Tannhäuser
2.6.29.6-213.fc11.i586
6:55 a.m.
btw. what was the reason for debian to drop webmin?
--
Josephine "Fine" Tannhäuser
2.6.29.6-213.fc11.i586
2:36 a.m.
This has gone way off topic! I was asking how to add binary files into
the RPM not whether webmin was useful/packagable for Fedora today. If I
can't do this then I can't get this and other packages up to scratch and
into Fedora.
We find webmin useful as it provides a single interface to multiple
operating systems for simple tasks. Complex ones are always done
otherwise. So while it may be a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands, so
is a surgical scapel but you would not ban them from any use because one
could possibly kill someone.
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 06:05 +0200, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
2009/9/29 Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com>
Dunno, maybe the fact that webmin is a weapon of mass
destruction. ;)
Afairr it is/was one. Bring it to fedora won't be a good idea?!
--
Josephine "Fine" Tannhäuser
2.6.29.6-213.fc11.i586
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
Howard Wilkinson <howard(a)cohtech.com>
Coherent Technology Limited
5331
days inactive
5335
days old
8 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Christoph Wickert -
Howard Wilkinson -
Iain Arnell -
Josephine Tannhäuser