<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Greg Woods wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1220981094.2859.1080.camel@cobweb" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 16:53 +0100, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:A.L.M.Buxey@lboro.ac.uk">A.L.M.Buxey@lboro.ac.uk</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">yep, you havent got all the required development packages installed.
libtool-ltdl-devel
libtool-ltdl
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Thanks, that was it. However, I discovered what I think is a bug in yum
in the process. I tried "yum list *ltdl*" and this failed to show these
packages; otherwise I might have found this myself. Even "yum list
libtool*" doesn't show them, I had to actually list libtool-ltdl-devel*
to see the devel package.</pre>
</blockquote>
We maintain rpm spec files that are known to work on Fedora (some RHEL,
CentOS) and if you had consulted that spec file you would have seen the
libtool-ltdl-devel dependency.<br>
<br>
I know the freeradius source tree and source tarball contains rpm spec
files and some suse and redhat specific info but I wonder if that is
the right place for that information, the distribution in question will
have up to date spec files specific to their distributions, I'm not
sure upstream is the place to go looking for it. The last time I looked
at the redhat directory it was way out of date.<br>
<br>
I'm inclined to think for those people who wish to build from upstream
they are better off using the autotools configure script included in
the freeradius source distribution and not use rpm mechanisms unless
the srpm comes from the distribution in question. Afterall autotools
was meant to solve the "correctly build on a foreign unknown platform"
problem, rpm is not the tool for that job. This is one reason I'm
dubious upstream is the place to maintain spec files (IMHO it's kinda
backwards ;-)<br>
<br>
Now having said that, I realize there isn't a 2.1.0 rpm spec file in
Fedora yet, so you would be right to say "how can I consult it?", but
I'm willing to bet the current 2.0.5 spec file would be pretty close to
what 2.1.0 needs. It's the Fedora project's job to make sure our spec
file and pre-built packages get upgraded to current upstream in a
timely fashion (where the definition of timely is open for vigorous
discussion, flames, etc. :-)<br>
<br>
BTW, RHEL, CentOS, etc. are enterprise stable distributions, don't
expect them to contain current versions, it's not in their mandate,
Fedora is the place to look for current up-to-date versions of packages.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
John Dennis <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jdennis@redhat.com"><jdennis@redhat.com></a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>