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

[Mandi]

While we're on the subject, and since you mention deploying software to N
boxen on a network, I have a question.

Does anyone have any insight in taking an rpm, modifying a couple files,
and repackaging the rpm?  I've been reading the rpm man page as I get
time, but it's huge, and I'm not interested in rebuilding rpms from
source, i'd just like to incorporate our site-specific configurations for
stuff like yp, printers, fonts, etc when i install a new host....

Has anyone done anything like that with rpm before?

thanks

--mandi

On Fri, 25 May 2001, coldfire wrote:

> > >      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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> techtalk mailing list
> techtalk at linuxchix.org
> http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
>