Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Linux standards

I think compiling stuff is good fun and a good way to learn about what
you are installing, but I would hardly recommend this for a production

Imagine having to roll out something on 100 machines.... you going to
make it on each one??  not only will that be a big PITA, it will screw
you when your system needs to be rebuilt quickly....especially when most
admins only back up user data...

In my experience, best practice is to keep an archive somewhere will all
of your common packages... precompiled and ready to rpm -i or whatever
your tool of choice may be.

On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 22:01, David Kramer wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, John Chambers wrote:
> > (Of course, there's the ongoing problem that tar and a makefile  seem
> > to  be  both  simpler  and more versatile than all the vendors' fancy
> > installation packages ...  ;-)
> Here's my big problem with tarballs:
> there's almost never a 
> 	make uninstall
> I could live without the whole rpm database thing if it were easy to 
> uninstall software installed from tarball/makefile.  Not hard to do 
> either.  For the author, that is.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> DDDD   David Kramer                 
> DK KD  
> DKK D  "Democracy is the art and science of running the circus 
> DK KD  from the monkey cage."
> DDDD                                                 -H. L. Mencken
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at

BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

Boston Linux & Unix /