[techtalk] source vs. rpm?

[GeekGrrl]

Source: configurable and alterable to your system. Can be used on
distributions that do not have RPM or RPM2TGZ type utilities, and any
system that -does-.

RPM: precompiled source geared towards systems following standards
compatible with the RPM utility.

I, personally, amd leery of RPMs because it seems that once a week,
Security Focus is reporting that one has a security hole while the source
may not if compiled on the same system. 

RPMs are good for folks not comfortable or knowledgable in compiling their
own source, but you are taking a risk with them. You are trusting that
whoever created the RPM had a few clues as to what is supposed to be going
on with that particular program and how to make it work. Usually they
do, but not always.


On Fri, 2 Jun
2000, Stephanie Alarcon wrote:

> > BTW: Be careful of rpms and make absolutely certain that they are BIND
> > 8.2.2P5 and not any other version before you use them. Compiling BIND from
> > source is -very- easy, taking a total of five steps to complete.
> 
> hey, anyone have a minute to explain the differences/advantages
> disadvantages of source vs rpm?   I've installed things both ways, but i
> really only know barely enough about them to be dangerous.  whenever i
> "make" something and it doesn't work i just kinda sit there blinking
> stupidly, and when an rpm goes in ok i am happy and think about what
> lovely magic it is.  I've done more installs with solaris than linux, and
> ithink an rpm is kind of like a package?
> 
> oh, here's a funny story...i have a printout from a patch doc for
> solaris.  The patch fixed a previous patch which had adverse effects on
> the system: it did an `rm -rf /`.  Oops.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> techtalk mailing list
> techtalk at linuxchix.org
> http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
>