[techtalk] source vs. rpm?

[Caitlyn Máire Martin]

Hi, Stephanie, and everyone else,

Yes, rpms are equivalent to packages in Solaris.  rpm is short for "Red Hat
Package Manager".  Most other major distributions now use rpms.  The notable
exceptions are Slackware and those based on Debian, including Corel and
Storm.  They also have a packaging system.  It's just not RPM.

I am definitely going to be in the minority here, but if I have a choice, I
prefer rpms from a trusted source, preferably, when possible, the
distributor I am using.  (For me, that means Red Hat or Caldera right now.)
kpackage offers me wonderful package and version management capability that
I just don't have if I install from source.  (gnorpm offers basically  the
same thing, though I find it a bit more difficult to use.)  It's way easy
for me to check what I have installed, and what the version is, before
making any changes.  It's also easy to search on package names and file
names within packages.

I only run into dependency issues when I try to use things designed for a
distribution or version other than the one I am running.  If that happens, I
have three options:  find a more appropriate rpm, rebuild the rpm for my
distro, or else install from source.  You can always fall back on installing
from source, but for me, that is the last resort.  After all, if the rpm is
problematic, I can always rip it out.

As far as security issues are concerned, well... that is a valid point, but
it's also why I stick with "official" distributor rpms whenever they are
available.  If there is a hole discovered, both Red Hat and Caldera are
very, very prompt about issuing updated rpms.

Oh, and yes, for newbies, packages are way easier than compiling the source
code.  OTOH, you learn more doing the compile.

Just my .02...

Regards,
Caity