[PLUG] rpm installation help, please

[Kyle Accardi]

Everyone (sans apt-get'ers) is right--ethereal is one of the most 
frustrating packages to install/update.  Not sure that building from scratch 
would help much either.  `make` will (or should) fail if you haven't met all 
the dependencies.  There are so many security lib deps and they are being 
updated very often.

If I could find my notes from the last time I did this (using rpms), they'd 
be out of date anyway.  But when you finally do it, your grunt gets a little 
deeper.

--
Kyle Accardi


Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Carla Schroder wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ethereal is a sterling example of how not to build an RPM. I've been fussing 
>>with it all afternoon- it's been an interesting education. To heck with the 
>>damned RPMs. The machines I use it on, it was installed during the original 
>>Linux installation. I'm going to try building from source and see what 
>>happens. The libs are on my test system, but not in the RPM database- seems 
>>like there was a thread on this not too long ago.
> 
>  
> Carla,
> 
>   I built ethereal from source then was sent a working rpm that's known to
> work on a RH 6.2 system. It works just fine.
> 
>   When a library is built from source it's not registered in the package
> database. If the rpm installation reports that dependency is missing, but
> 'locate' confirms it's installed, just use the '--nodeps' switch and the
> rpm will install and run without complaints or problems.
> 
>   If anyone wants a copy of:
> 
> /usr1/rpm-packages/ethereal-base-0.9.1-1.i386.rpm
> /usr1/rpm-packages/ethereal-gtk+-0.9.1-1.i386.rpm
> /usr1/rpm-packages/ethereal-usermode-0.9.1-1.i386.rpm
> 
>   I'll be happy to push them your way as attachments; about 2.7M worth of
> tools.