[Bug 248] Review Request: rar - RAR archiver to create and manage RAR archives

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248





--- Comment #17 from Lubos Stanek <lubek at users.sourceforge.net>  2009-03-18 12:04:00 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > (In reply to comment #13)
> > > @Lubos
> > > - Where to get the sfx modules ? Where to store them ?
> > 
> > I am packaging sfxs into %{_libdir} and symlinking them into /usr/local/etc
> again, I don't know where to download the sfx files. 

The packages for other OSs are at the same place as the Linux package.

> > Maybe it would be useful to package modules in a standalone package (rar-sfx)
> > to speed up the review of the main rar package.
> Possible as this rar-sfx may be a noarch package, but only useful on ix86
> x86_64. unless I'm wrong.
> btw is it relevant to have the linux-x86_64.sfx on x86 ?

To paraphrase your question: is it relevant to have <any>sfx on
<any>architecture?
I do not want to limit the user. It is his decision whether to use a sfx module
and what one. The resulting binary does not have to be executable on the
creation system.

>From the message sent at Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:57:50 +0100:
Hi  Nicolas,
I know that you have been packaging application for Fedora for a long time and
your time is short.
I am packaging rar for my private purposes so the .spec file could be of some
use for you.
The problematic part is the sfxs archive. I am currently creating it myself.
The sfx modules are distributed in the appropriate system/os distribution
package and it is necessary to extract it. Any automated script has been
complex too much for me so far.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.