24 Apr
2012
24 Apr
'12
9:29 p.m.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
Darrell Anderson <humanreadable(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
The RHEL packages are way
more likely to be compatible with Scientific
Linux than the Fedora ones, since SL is supposed to be binary
compatible with the corresponding RHEL version. Didn't test at all,
though.
I will look
into them, but I think these packages are for
R14 and I'm focusing on 3.5.13 for now.
I've already built tqca-tls R14 with TQT3 bt writing the
attached patch (see first part).
Where do I look for the patches?
I'm okay with your patches being for 3.5.13. I can massage/adapt them
to GIT. I have been doing that regularly around here. :)
Problems occur when the "configure"
script is not
autogenerated but is a static shell script, it often lacks the
"lib64" directories in path ...
Yes, that is the case. I need to learn how to fix only one of each
(tqca or tqca-tls and python-tqt or python-trinity). After I learn to
fix one of each I should be able to do likewise for the other. The
challenge with the two python packages is the configuration scripts
are written in python, which I don't know.
By the way, are your Fedora packages compatible with other Redhat
spinoff releases, such as Scientific Linux? Just curious.
Darrell
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-devel-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional
commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read
list messages on the web archive:
http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to
top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting