PINE not included in FC2?

[Satish Balay]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Nifty Hat Mitch wrote:

> > No they don't. From http://www.washington.edu/pine/getpine/linux.html
> > RedHat/Fedora RPM package  built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 
> 
> ????? But they do and it works fine here.  From your URL.
> 
>    # rpm -Uvh pine-4.61-1.i386.rpm
>    Preparing...   ########################################### [100%]
>    1:pine         ########################################### [100%]
>    # uname -r
>    2.6.8-1.521  <--- FC2 current...

Last time I tried using an rpm from this site (probably with pine
4.60) - it wouldn't install on FC1 (if I remember correctly - due to
the krb5/libcom_err.so issue).  I guess they fixed the rpm to somehow
work both-ways (RHEL3 should be similar to RHL9)

> My point is staying close to the source/home for packages that are not
> under the watchful eye of the Fedora community can have value.

If I have a choice (same version) I would prefer an RPM build on/for
FC1 (to install on FC1) - to a common .rpm built for RHEL/FC1/FC2

> An important point is that the more locations you gather packages
> from the more places you have to watch for updates as the result
> of my "rpm -U" shows.  Make sure you are on announcement lists
> for foreign packages.

Actually this would a reason for using dag's repositories - easily
monitorable for updates using yum - thus fewer sites to monitor.

The reason to monitor the primary-source is to get pacakges faster
than the 3rd party sites. This might not work always. For eg: mozilla
doens't have FC1/FC2 rpms yet for 1.7.3. (they just have 1.7.2)

Satish