[CentOS] Compile vs. RPM
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.comMon Jan 9 17:40:36 UTC 2006
- Previous message: [CentOS] Compile vs. RPM
- Next message: [CentOS] Compile vs. RPM
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 11:10, Mickael Maddison wrote: > Ok. So basically, every response on this list feels that RPM's are > sufficiently stable, are created fast enough to address security > concerns that come up, and have all the 'normal' functionality that > pretty much anyone needs... is that a fair statement? You might have an exception or two where for some local situation you need to have the latest available version or some special option set during a compile but the RPMs are fine for normal use. > The one thing I've always liked about installing from tarball > distributions is that I prefix everything into /usr/local -- so it's > easy to find all the pieces. This is perhaps the one thing that I > find most annoying about RPM; spreading things all over the place. Of > course, being able to custom compile modules etc. has worked well. But rpm keeps track of everything. There is no equivalent of 'rpm -e packagename' to remove all parts of a tarball installed package. If you do need a slight customization you can download the src rpm and tweak it. > QUESTION: Do most of you cron the yum updates, or do you watch for > new RPMs and update "manually"? I do them manually because I don't like surprises, but try not to get too far behind. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
- Previous message: [CentOS] Compile vs. RPM
- Next message: [CentOS] Compile vs. RPM
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list