[techtalk] source vs. rpm?

[Jenn]

you can get src rpms  :) 

Both have a package manager. 

There are certain things that you will and should never use an rpm
for.. for example.. apache. 

On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Jeff Dike wrote:

> beleza at bci-bluestone.com said:
> > 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?
> 
> An rpm is indeed a package.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, the difference is that if you build from source, 
> there will be no library compatibility problems, assuming that your libraries 
> are at all compatible.  rpms may demand versions of libraries which you don't 
> happen to have.
> 
> The flip side of that is that to build from source, you may have to install 
> headers that you didn't have before.
> 
> 				Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> techtalk mailing list
> techtalk at linuxchix.org
> http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
> 

 "There are two major products to come out of Berkeley - LSD and
UNIX. I don't believe this to be a coincidence."