[linrad] Re: Linux distributions

[richard <blueyonder.co.uk; richard.bown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

KD7HGL wrote:
> richard wrote:
>
> > KD7HGL wrote:
> >
> > >
>
> > > Tarballs vs RPMs.  At work I run a bunch of Redhat systems and I 
> > > frequently need to uninstall an RPM and install something from 
> > > source. This works just fine.  The main thing to remember is to 
> > > remove the RPM before installing the tarball.  There is nothing wrong 
> > > with keeping a system with both types of packages.
> >
> >
> > Oh I strongly, strongly, utterly, indisputedly disagree, if you remove 
> > a RPM you break the dependencies on other packages that use the same RPM
>
>
> Thanks for bring up a good point.
>
> In my last email I was not suggesting to force the removal of a RPM and 
> use a source package in it's place.  If you remove a RPM and there are a 
> lot of dependencies on that package then the system will tell you it 
> needs to remove all of the packages that depend on it.  In that case you 
> need to decide if compiling all of those packages from source is worth 
> the change you are trying to make.
>
> In my experience I only have one program that uses libsvga, linrad.  I 
> only know of one other libsvga program and that is for lirc, and they 
> provide an X11 alternative.  In my case there is no dependency so not 
> using the RPM is not preventing other RPMs from being used.
>
> If you are using a lot of RPMs that depend on libsvga then it is 
> probably important to leave the RPM in place so you can use those packages.
>
> I have had the same experience with postfix.  I can remove the stock 
> postfix RPM and install the latest postfix from source and not cause 
> other problems on the system.  I think it all depends on the dependency 
> of (or on) the RPM in question.
>
> Thanks for encouraging me to be more clear on using tarballs and source 
> vs RPMs.  I think both have value and you just need to be aware of the 
> implications of that choice.
>
> 73, JOSH
I you have control over the RPM data base , you can get away with running two versions of
libs, one derived from RPM and the other from a tar ball..

In theory

But also any app using this extra lib must know not to go looking for it else where.
More and more now if you add a package you see a list of dependences longer than the Malmo Bridge
, that seem to have no association with the original app.
Its done probably to enable to help the newbie get s/w loaded.
To be honest there is nothing wrong with producing a binary for each distro , it has the big 
advantage that it works, and as long as the RPM is built correctly all the dependencies can be 
loaded in minutes..
And there tis an up and running  linrad, or what ever.

I just had to do a complete install here due to some foul ups with the OSS drivers,
I had the system back up and fully updated in 4 hours, plus another 5 hours rebuilding 7 packages
with the authors insist on compiling from tar balls.
The stats alone say it all, 2000 packages in 4 hrs, plus 7 in an extra 5 hrs, its all the flaffing 
about getting libs to satisfy the config files before compiling.
You can meet the system half way, down load the RPM as an src and pull the dependencies at the same 
time.

It's a a very emotive subject, born from those running slackware, the ex-linux druids of pain and 
suffering, and those accept there is an easier way to do it.

Enuf point made

73
Richard G8JVM

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list <linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <linrad-off@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <linrad-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <linrad-index@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Send administrative queries to  <linrad-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


LINRADDARNIL