[techtalk] Re: rpms r bad? (was Linux-Mandrake)

[Brian Sweeney]

>      Two things, for me.  One is that when you compile from source, you
> can set compile-time options, change the default install directory,
> things like that.
>With an RPM, all of that gets decided for you.
> There are usually one or two parameters that I want to tweak, so I tend
> to favor compiling from source for that reason alone.  The second
> reason is that when you compile from source, you'll use the libraries
> that you actually have on your system.  With many RPM binaries, they've
> been compiled with a given set of libraries.  If those don't happen to
> be the same versions of libraries that you have on your system, the RPM
> will often choke for apparantly no reason, even though it installed
> fine.

I actually LIKE using RPMS.  But when I do have problems with them, which
isn't uncommon, it's because of the above.

>      Apt-get will update a package's dependencies intelligently.  So if
> you need a bunch of new crypt libraries with your SSH or SSL, apt get
> will tell you that, and often get them for you.

rpm will also tell you if you're failing dependencies, and a quick search on
rpmfind.net can tell you where to get what you need.

-Brian