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

[coldfire]

> >      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.

i favor compiling from source ... you can modify the source, of coure the
compile time options, and it's a MUCH more custom tailored feeling when
you're done ...

however, if you're working on a 50 computer network and they all need a
new version of <insert app here>, then rpms make it MUCH easier to do.


abe