are there any cons in updating via source automake autconf aclocal vs the rpm of suse.... i see suse is not up to date on these packages
There are many disadvantages (RPM command in brackets): 1. You lose all the advantages of a package-based system: a. You will not be able to un-install the software like all the other on your system. [-e] b. No ability to query the version, installed size, description, or installation date. [-qi] c. No ability to verify the installation. [-q --verify] d. No post-install / post-uninstall scripts. e. You lose the effectiveness of picking a random file/directory on your system and the system telling you what piece of software owns it. [-qf] 2. Proprietary/closed-source software is not compilable. I see (1) as the greatest disadvantage. Although SuSE may be behind in generating up-to-date RPMs of their packages, the community may not be. If the demand is high enough, you can almost guarantee that some user has greated a SuSE-compliant RPM. Of course, once other distributions start using the LSB (RedHat will, thank god, by the end of the year), you will be able to install RedHat RPMs on your SuSE machine without any loss. I can't wait for that day. You might want to check out a piece of software called CheckInstall, which will create RPMs (or DEBs, pkgs, for that matter), when you run 'make install'. If is available at http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/. It could be worth your time to check it out. On 9 Mar 2002, Landy Roman wrote:
are there any cons in updating via source automake autconf aclocal vs the rpm of suse....
i see suse is not up to date on these packages
-- Karol Pietrzak PGP KeyID: 3A1446A0
Op zondag 10 maart 2002 05:14, schreef Karol Pietrzak:
Of course, once other distributions start using the LSB (RedHat will, thank god, by the end of the year), you will be able to install RedHat RPMs on your SuSE machine without any loss. I can't wait for that day.
Are you sure they (suse and rh) will be interchangable? I would only think of the way suse uses the ec.config file and SuSEconfig?? -- Richard Bos For those without home the journey is endless
On 10 Mar 2002, Richard Bos wrote:
Are you sure they (suse and rh) will be interchangable? I would only think of the way suse uses the ec.config file and SuSEconfig??
Interchangability of software is what the LSB strives for. So in theory, yes. SuSE, according to Lenz Grimmer, is abandoning the "rc.config concept" strictly because it does not conform to the LSB. SuSEconfig, though, is entirely a client-side utility, and I have yet to see a single RPM that uses it directly. -- Karol Pietrzak PGP KeyID: 3A1446A0
Op zondag 10 maart 2002 19:31, schreef Karol Pietrzak:
Interchangability of software is what the LSB strives for. So in theory, yes. SuSE, according to Lenz Grimmer, is abandoning the "rc.config concept" strictly because it does not conform to
What will the new concept look like? Is it possible to explain this in 3 lines?
the LSB. SuSEconfig, though, is entirely a client-side utility, and I have yet to see a single RPM that uses it directly.
Humm, that is interesting. I assume that at the moment YaST knows that SuSEconfig needs to run. But what will happen if people start installing "alien" (e.g. RH) packages? At first this is not possible via YOU, so one must download the package(s) manually, after which YaST can probably install it and run SuSEconfig. I doubt that this goes perfectly well for difficult packages (like kde and the like). More simple packages (e.g. perl modules) this will be okay. Well I'm looking forward to the LSB decade, it gives interesting opertunities and challenges :)) -- Richard Bos For those without home the journey is endless
On Sunday 10 March 2002 21.46, Richard Bos wrote:
Humm, that is interesting. I assume that at the moment YaST knows that SuSEconfig needs to run. But what will happen if people start installing "alien" (e.g. RH) packages? At first this is not possible via YOU, so one must download the package(s) manually, after which YaST can probably install it and run SuSEconfig. I doubt that this goes perfectly well for difficult packages (like kde and the like). More simple packages (e.g. perl modules) this will be okay. Well I'm looking forward to the LSB decade, it gives interesting opertunities and challenges :))
Note that in the vast majority of cases, SuSEconfig doesn't actually *need* to run when you install a new package. It only does anything useful for a select few SuSE-designed packages. Most of the time you get the exact same result with rpm -ivh, only in shorter time ;) //Anders
Not being a SuSE employee, I have no idea what the new concept will look/act like. Perhaps this is one of the things that SuSE Linux 8.0 will bring to the table, and explaining (partially) why SuSE is late (when compared to their normal release cycle). On 10 Mar 2002, Richard Bos wrote:
Op zondag 10 maart 2002 19:31, schreef Karol Pietrzak:
Interchangability of software is what the LSB strives for. So in theory, yes. SuSE, according to Lenz Grimmer, is abandoning the "rc.config concept" strictly because it does not conform to
What will the new concept look like? Is it possible to explain this in 3 lines?
-- Karol Pietrzak PGP KeyID: 3A1446A0
On Sunday 10 March 2002 04:14, Karol Pietrzak wrote:
You might want to check out a piece of software called CheckInstall, which will create RPMs (or DEBs, pkgs, for that matter), when you run 'make install'. If is available at http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/. It could be worth your time to check it out.
It's also in the distribution discs. I use it a lot and have had no problems uninstalling or installing with it. Terence
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 22:33:53 -0500 (EST), you wrote:
are there any cons in updating via source automake autconf aclocal vs the rpm of suse....
Besides the obvious that you loose all tracking? And that installing packages might bug you for installing those packages? At least I'd advise you to install these versions to /usr/local (which they'll do by default if not passed a differing --prefix) so that they won't get overwritten by any future update.
i see suse is not up to date on these packages
Which version of SuSE Linux? And trust me, going to current versions of automake and autoconf won't be that easy as quite a few packages need tweeking to play nicely with autoconf 2.5X. Or wait for 8.0, as that'll have autoconf 2.52 and automake 1.5 ;-) Philipp
participants (6)
-
Anders Johansson -
Karol Pietrzak -
Landy Roman -
Philipp Thomas -
Richard Bos -
Terence McCarthy