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

Raven, corporate courtesan damask0 at yahoo.com
Fri May 25 09:02:31 EST 2001


Heya --

> I'm not disputing the negativity concerning RPMS,
> as I've had my annoyances with them, occassionally.
> (Mostly when I first started working with RedHat.)
> However, I would like to understand some of the
> criticism they get. What is it that makes compiling
> from source better than installing from an RPM?

     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.

> What are the advantages of apt-get over RPM?

     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.

Cheers,
Raven

=====
"Passion, hunger, will, and ice cream create their own world
 in which the word 'after' simply doesn't make any sense.
 Ice cream is now."
 -- Starhawk, "The Twelve Wild Swans"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/




More information about the Techtalk mailing list