Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>
> You installed without a conflict, good. Perhaps you were installing on a
> 32-bit system rather than a 64-bit? Perhaps your system didn't have some of
> the packages already installed for other functionality that mine did? All I
> can say is that, for my system, yum saw version conflicts that were
> blockers.
That doesn't make any sense. Yum pulls whatever it needs from the configured
repos if you don't have them. If yum sees conflicts on your system it is
because you installed packages from somewhere other than the base and epel repos
and thus shouldn't be blaming the package or packager.
> As for "properly," there are, as Larry Wall says, many ways to do it.
Yes, but none of them involve setting up unexpected conflicts with the base or
epel repository packages.
> It is
> up to each project, as their first task, IMHO, to see to it that
> ./configure, make, make install works for their package, with proper,
> documented flags, on standard Linux distros. Ganglia - a fine and valuable
> project on the whole - has a broken "make install."
Did you mean to say it didn't run on your system? Or that you didn't apply the
changes in the rpm spec file before expecting it to work?
> On the whole, this list is professional. I like that. But look,
> "./configure, make, make install" is _always_ a proper option.
If you are careful to keep the results in /usr/local or /opt, maybe. Otherwise
you'll likely overwrite something that should be managed. And call things broken
that are your own fault.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com