[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Installing software without a package manager
Casey Boone <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> i am with koree on this one, it all depends upon what you are
> installing, there is a package for it, if you have that package
> installed, and how you install it from tarball
Well, there's a lot of grey area. For example, it's always nice when
a RPM is part of a repository you trust for GPG verification. Just
grabbing any RPM can be an issue in itself.
But always remember to consider two things:
1. Try "rpmbuild -tb" on a tarball _before_ building. A _lot_ of
tarballs include RPM SPEC and DPKG meta-data, and this will save you
2. Use "checkinstall" instead of "make install" to build a RPM/DPKG
for your distro. It not only requires virtually _no_ additional
effort, but saves you a _lot_ of grief should you need to uninstall,
Now #2 doesn't always work for everything. But when it does, it
saves you not only a bit of grief -- but makes it easy to replicate
across multiple systems.
> i have set up boxes using fcX as a base (minimal install + yum
> update + developer tools) and then never use the packages again
> except to update the kernel or to install some development lib.
> on these boxes all public facing services get built from source.
It's ironic that I was "raked over the coals" (on LUCI was it?) for
suggesting that minimalistic, source-built Gentoo servers have their
place in embedded or highly customized Internet servers. I mean,
when it comes right down to it -- whether you use a distributed
source fetch-build tool or do it manually makes little difference.
Especially when the "packages" distro might have dependencies you
don't need (let alone want to maintain).
In fact, I'm a huge proponent of using a "ports" approach inside of a
minimal "packages" distro when you are building a development system
or a highly customize system where the rest of the "packages" distro
would get in the way. A select number of lesser-known RPM/DPKG
distros are starting to experiment with this, so I can't be alone.
> i suppose i could bother learning to properly build a .spec
> and make a proper .rpm but usually it isnt something important
> enough or popular enough to bother with that.
But if you're deploying on multiple systems, it does make a bit more
sense. As I was eluding to in another e-mail, the effectiveness of
custom installation becomes inversely proportional to enterprise
configuration management as the number of systems goes up.
> while i agree that having 3rd party stuff installed can make
> debugging a problem harder, i dont submit bug requests when i am
> using a product out of spec either.
Agreed. Too many people expect the Fedora community to deal with
issues that break down to either custom built and/or closed source
software. While Red Hat does the latter under its SLAs for Red Hat
Enterprise Linux, NO ONE should expect the Fedora Community to do so.
P.S. Please don't flame me off-list for this. Stop and recognize
what I'm trying to say -- which is _between_ many viewpoints of
others I've seen here. E.g., I'm trying to make people aware of
things like "rpmbuild -tb" as well as "checkinstall."
Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance
*** Speed doesn't kill, difference in speed does ***
To unsubscribe, send email to email@example.com with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.