On 03/07/13 20:09, Yasha Karant wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 06:37 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Tom H wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Dag Wieers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's pretty cynical to learn that at Google the RHEL packages have been
>>>> build in an Ubuntu environment, rather than properly packaged on the
>>>> same
>>>> distribution. A practice that almost everyone is doing today.
>>>>
>>>> It's amazing that this even worked, we'd be better off if it didn't...
>>>
>>> They must be using mock, which is available in Ubuntu.
>>
>> They cannot be using mock, otherwise it wouldn't pick up the newer,
>> alien libstdc++ from Ubuntu 12.04. Besides, if they did it would all
>> have magically worked (or not have built at all).
>>
>>      Version     : 27.0.1453.110
>>      Build Host: lin64build12.chrome.corp.google.com
>>
>> vs
>>
>>      Version     : 28.0.1500.70
>>      Build Host: precise64build2.chrome.corp.google.com
>>      RPM version: 4.9.1.1
>>
>> So the RPM version pretty much gives away that they do not build on
>> RHEL. And rpm-4.9.1.1 is exactly what ships with Ubuntu Precise Pangolin
>> (aka Ubuntu 12.04).
>>
>> Need more proof ? :-)
>>
> 
> Please pardon this question, but how did you extract the above information?
> 
> When I use a fairly universal method (please see below), I do find
> essentially the same precise64 ... information, but not the RPM version.
> 

try: less $RPM_FILE

;-)

There's also some tricks to dump this info using 'rpm' too if you only
have the rpm file available ... but I've forgotten how and I'm too lazy
to look it up now.

But you can use this rpm command on installed RPM packages:

    rpm -qi $PACKAGE_NAME

F.ex:   rpm -qi firefox


--
kind regards,

David Sommerseth