O.k.. This is the last time I am posting on this thread. It has been brought to my attention by a reader that there are discrepancies between the 2 packages. Your right, there is....
First and foremost, My readme was in error. I compiled this for Slackware 9.1 and not 10... I noticed that about an hour ago. All the binaries are still in the correct places that the Slackware 10 package has them. The install script does the same things as well. I did remove the /etc/dircolors part from the package and related commands from my install script.
I made this package for my own personal use and didn't want a "DIR_COLORS.new" floating around in my /etc directory that I would never use. I originally decided to use that 760Mb worth of useless space in my "Briefcase" as a sort of 'personal backup' area because I have been burned on loosing backup disks and what not. Just thought it might be nice to have them somewhere else. Then I started to accumulate alot of stuff and thought, "hey, might as well link to it and make some README's"..... I probably shouldn't have that package in there I guess.... The patch is cool tho... Took me along time to find that one...
Also, my package was not stripped of debugging symbols so the binaries are
slightly larger.. That will account a little bit for the slight difference in size between the 2 packages.... More importantly, when I compiled coreutils-5.2.1.tar.bz2 from source, I included these binaries which Pat does not:
/usr/bin/hostname
/usr/bin/kill
/usr/bin/su
/usr/bin/uptime
These binaries on Slackware come from other packages.
If I remember correctly, hostname comes from the package 'net-tools' or whatever it's called on Slackware. Some say coreutils 'hostname' is inferior compared to the 'net-tools' version... Thats probably why Pat decided to build without it... I don't know why it's supposed to be "inferior".... Seems to work just fine for me... So, The original will get replaced it seems..... I didn't consider it too big of a deal at the time and am still not too sure that it matters one way or the other.... But for completeness's sake. This package is NOT like the original....
There is also a "4 count" discrepancy between the "/usr/man/man1"'s.... I'm not going to look thru it but I'll just go ahead and assume they are new man pages for the 4 new binaries that my package contains. It makes sense anyway...
We all know Pat is REALLY anal about making his packages and he probably uses crazy configure switches on most if not ALL of his packages in order to tweak EVERYTHING just so..... We'll, I didn't do that. It was just a regular "./configure;make;make install" type of deal after I set my flags....
I'm not going to bother looking into where kill, su and uptime come from on a slack install. Quite frankly, I'm a little stressed out now and am going to hit Happy Hour down at Skully's.... Dollar well drinks sounds about nice
I also didn't stop to think about something more important like maybe I was being abrasive towards Chinaman without even realizing it.... I'm not sure if I offended you or not, but if I did offend you in any way, I sincerely appologize. We all know what a bitch pride can be..... Not sure if this is the case or not, but I thought I'd just say it anyway for good measure...
Well, ok... I'm off.....
Jon
PS- Hope the "restore" process goes O.k... I didn't have any probs with it. Seems if you just run "installpkg" twice on the package or manually extract it into your "/" drectory and then run the install script, all is well... Sorry bout that....
