Commercial software is an evil some of us have to live with and as long as I have no choice I figured I'd try and make it as painless as possible. So I've been packaging the various commercial software around into Fedora-friendly RPMs so that I can move away from an NFS or rsync-ed /usr/local. So far I've done Matlab R14sp1, Mathematica 5, the PGI compiler suite and RealPlayer. (OK, RealPlayer was already an RPM but doing everything in a postinstall script is pretty nasty.) I doubt there up to proper Fedora standards but at least they work.
Is anyone else doing this? Is there a place where we can exchange specfiles?
- J<
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Commercial software is an evil some of us have to live with and as long as I have no choice I figured I'd try and make it as painless as possible. So I've been packaging the various commercial software around into Fedora-friendly RPMs so that I can move away from an NFS or rsync-ed /usr/local. So far I've done Matlab R14sp1, Mathematica 5, the PGI compiler suite and RealPlayer. (OK, RealPlayer was already an RPM but doing everything in a postinstall script is pretty nasty.) I doubt there up to proper Fedora standards but at least they work.
Is anyone else doing this? Is there a place where we can exchange specfiles?
- J<
livna?
On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 14:03, Warren Togami wrote:
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Commercial software is an evil some of us have to live with and as long as I have no choice I figured I'd try and make it as painless as possible. So I've been packaging the various commercial software around into Fedora-friendly RPMs so that I can move away from an NFS or rsync-ed /usr/local. So far I've done Matlab R14sp1, Mathematica 5, the PGI compiler suite and RealPlayer. (OK, RealPlayer was already an RPM but doing everything in a postinstall script is pretty nasty.) I doubt there up to proper Fedora standards but at least they work.
Is anyone else doing this? Is there a place where we can exchange specfiles?
- J<
livna?
this really isn't like that.
this isn't software that is only illegal to distribute in certain countries.
Thie is software that is illegal to distribute ANYWHERE.
-sv
On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 14:01, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Commercial software is an evil some of us have to live with and as long as I have no choice I figured I'd try and make it as painless as possible. So I've been packaging the various commercial software around into Fedora-friendly RPMs so that I can move away from an NFS or rsync-ed /usr/local. So far I've done Matlab R14sp1, Mathematica 5, the PGI compiler suite and RealPlayer. (OK, RealPlayer was already an RPM but doing everything in a postinstall script is pretty nasty.) I doubt there up to proper Fedora standards but at least they work.
Is anyone else doing this? Is there a place where we can exchange specfiles?
We have: mathematica matlab r13 and r14 maple nag and absoft fortran compilers
among others.
I don't think there is a place to exchange spec files, though there is nothing keeping you from posting yours or posting a .nosrc. rpm.
-sv
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 02:04:41PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 14:01, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Commercial software is an evil some of us have to live with and as long as I have no choice I figured I'd try and make it as painless as possible. So I've been packaging the various commercial software around into Fedora-friendly RPMs so that I can move away from an NFS or rsync-ed /usr/local. So far I've done Matlab R14sp1, Mathematica 5, the PGI compiler suite and RealPlayer. (OK, RealPlayer was already an RPM but doing everything in a postinstall script is pretty nasty.) I doubt there up to proper Fedora standards but at least they work.
Is anyone else doing this? Is there a place where we can exchange specfiles?
We have: mathematica matlab r13 and r14 maple nag and absoft fortran compilers
among others.
I don't think there is a place to exchange spec files, though there is nothing keeping you from posting yours or posting a .nosrc. rpm.
ATrpms would *love* to host nosrc.rpm/specfiles for numerical/engineering packages!
Get me those mathematica/matlab/maple and nag specfiles now! 8-)
On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 14:04 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
Is anyone else doing this? Is there a place where we can exchange specfiles?
We have: mathematica matlab r13 and r14 maple nag and absoft fortran compilers
among others.
I don't think there is a place to exchange spec files, though there is nothing keeping you from posting yours or posting a .nosrc. rpm.
Acrobat reader and CJK fontpacks:
ftp://pentafluge.infradead.org/pub/acroread/acroread-5.09-1.nosrc.rpm ftp://pentafluge.infradead.org/pub/acroread/acroread-fontpack-5-1.nosrc.rpm
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:
Acrobat reader and CJK fontpacks:
ftp://pentafluge.infradead.org/pub/acroread/acroread-5.09-1.nosrc.rpm ftp://pentafluge.infradead.org/pub/acroread/acroread-fontpack-5-1.nosrc.rpm
FYI, acroread is already in livna.org: http://rpm.livna.org/fedora/2/i386/SRPMS.testing/
-- Rex
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:01:20PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Is anyone else doing this? Is there a place where we can exchange specfiles?
Note that the right way for "exchanging" non-free software packages is to exchange nosrc.rpm files, not just spec files.
On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 20:05 +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:01:20PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Is anyone else doing this? Is there a place where we can exchange specfiles?
Note that the right way for "exchanging" non-free software packages is to exchange nosrc.rpm files, not just spec files.
Yeah, specfiles aren't all -- a lot of time there are patches and additional sources involved. I like how jpackage.org does .nosrc.rpm, so this can be similar. I have packaged lots of proprietary binary-only stuff, a lot of time while bleeding bile from my eyes, so if I could make this useful to others, I'm all for it.
I'll investigate creating .nosrc.rpm files.
Cheers,
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 08:05:59PM +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:01:20PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Is anyone else doing this? Is there a place where we can exchange specfiles?
Note that the right way for "exchanging" non-free software packages is to exchange nosrc.rpm files, not just spec files.
That assumes you have the right to redistribute the binary and are not just doing internal packaging. Windows/XP.nosrc.rpm will get me a rude letter and a visit from the boys with truncheons
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 02:15:21PM -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 08:05:59PM +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:01:20PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Is anyone else doing this? Is there a place where we can exchange specfiles?
Note that the right way for "exchanging" non-free software packages is to exchange nosrc.rpm files, not just spec files.
That assumes you have the right to redistribute the binary and are not just doing internal packaging. Windows/XP.nosrc.rpm will get me a rude letter and a visit from the boys with truncheons
I wonder whether these boys will be sent from the commercial company involved, or whether this will be a spontaneous outrage of the Linux hacker community.
Possibly both, but the latter would hit you harder ;)
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 02:15:21PM -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
That assumes you have the right to redistribute the binary and are not just doing internal packaging. Windows/XP.nosrc.rpm will get me a rude letter and a visit from the boys with truncheons
Uhh... the norsrc.rpm's do not include the binaries-that-may-not-be- redistributed, so what's the problem?
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 08:39:36PM +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
That assumes you have the right to redistribute the binary and are not just doing internal packaging. Windows/XP.nosrc.rpm will get me a rude letter and a visit from the boys with truncheons
Uhh... the norsrc.rpm's do not include the binaries-that-may-not-be- redistributed, so what's the problem?
My misunderstanding then. I've seen that used to refer to cases where the package contains binaries of proprietary code that you don't get src.rpm for
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 06:04:54PM -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
My misunderstanding then. I've seen that used to refer to cases where the package contains binaries of proprietary code that you don't get src.rpm for
Yeah, I was thinking of software were the distributed binary stuff are the actual "Source" files in the rpm that you left out with the "NoSource" tags.
Jos Vos wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:01:20PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Is anyone else doing this? Is there a place where we can exchange specfiles?
Note that the right way for "exchanging" non-free software packages is to exchange nosrc.rpm files, not just spec files.
Is there a HOWTO that describes nosrc.rpm's and how they are made and used? (A quick Googling didn't help much...)
Eli --------------------. "If it ain't broke now, Eli Carter \ it will be soon." -- crypto-gram eli.carter(a)inet.com `-------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential and/or privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so that proper delivery can be arranged, and please delete the message from your computer. Thank you. Inet Technologies, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:58:38PM -0500, Eli Carter wrote:
Is there a HOWTO that describes nosrc.rpm's and how they are made and used? (A quick Googling didn't help much...)
It's pretty simple: add one or more lines like
NoSource: 0 NoPatch: 5
to exclude one or more source and/or patch files (identified by their number). The last time I looked it was not possible anymore to specify multiple, comma-separated numbers on one line, although this was possible long ago.
--On Friday, October 01, 2004 1:01 PM -0500 Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
So far I've done Matlab R14sp1, Mathematica 5, the PGI compiler suite and RealPlayer. (OK, RealPlayer was already an RPM but doing everything in a postinstall script is pretty nasty.)
How do others handle patches? I use Lugaru Epsilon (http://www.lugaru.com/) and each patch shows up as a new package that can be applied to any previous version within a major version branch. But I don't think there's much prereq stuff enforced. And a lot of work is done in %post to set up symlinks in /usr/local/bin and install the .info file.
On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 13:01 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Commercial software is an evil some of us have to live with and as
Please, don't confuse commercial with proprietary.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial
Free Software can be just as commercial as proprietary software.
All it takes is being used in a commercial context.
I'm sorry for the waves, but this kind of mistakes propagate the FUD that Free Software can't be used for business.
Thanks for your attention, Rui