not to start the inevitable religious war between .rpm, ,deb,
.whateverslackwareuses, but...
The prime advantage of RPM is modularity - all the files associated with a
single package are included in the .rpm format, so the files are installed
as a "module" that can be upgraded or removed by RPM without affecting the
rest of the system - RPM also enforces dependencies (making sure you have
gtk installed before installing the gimp, etc) and allows for rebuilds of
pristine sources (source RPMs can be unpacked, made, and installed with a
single command)...RPM also seems to be the dominant format for freely
available packages out there...
My primary complaint with RPMs is unclear documentation on how to make one
(if anyone has a good source of info other than Maximum RPM, please let me
know..)
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, <Ezra Lee> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
>
> > I do have one question, why use the RPM at all?
>
> I'm not sure. I would think it may be more convenient to some. I used it
> because it came with my RedHat deal. I can't compare, I've never used any
> other package for the source tree (tar.gz?).
> I suppose the advantages of using RPM for anything else can still apply.
> Unsure of what they may be besides convenient installing, uninstalling,
> verifying files, and whatever else RPM is good for...
> I don't know too much about this. So, I have a few questions also:
> Do you use RPM for anything else? Would the advantage(s) of a binary RPM
> be different that for a SRPM?
>
> I use RPM for two main reasons:
> All the stuff that came with my original installation were on RPM. And it
> helps me keep track of the programs I have and stuff.
>
> Regards,
> Ezra
>
> Oh, one more note, I put a type in my original message:
>
> > Zephaniah E, Hull
> > On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, <Ezra Lee> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey, how goes it?
> > >
> > > I think the best way to do this would be to unpack the rpm with glint or
> > > command-line (rpm -i kernel-2_0_32-2_src.rpm; it's in man rpm).
> > > Afterwards, the source tree should be in /usr/src/linux/. From there,
> > > follow Linus's directions.
> > > I'm not sure of this, but I think the only deal with the rpm, is that it
> > > contains the source and dir info.
> > > Like I said I'm sure, and others could be more confident on this, but it's
>
> ^ I meant to write unsure.
>
> > > late and thought you'd like a response tonight.
> > >
> > > Good luck,
> > > Ezra
> > >
> > > On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Laith Elias Haddadin wrote:
> > >
> > > > I wanted to recompile my kernel to the latest version that redhat has. I
> > > > went ahead and got the kernel-2_0_32-2_src.rpm and have no clue how to get
> > > > going from here (the file size is 7226KB). I understand the procedures
> > > > how to recompile a kernel, but I don't know how to do it with the rpm
> > > > packages. Could someone lead me in the right direction. I'm currently
> > > > running RH4.2 kernel version 2.0.30. (another reason for recompiling is
> > > > the need for SCSI support).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Laith E.H.
> > > >
> > > > ___________________________________________________________________
> > > > -Laith Elias Haddadin (laith at cc.gatech.edu)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
brian h. trammell <brian at altara.org> http://www.altara.org/~brian
http://www.altara.org/~brian/key.asc for PGP public key
director - the altara project and altara open network
communicate without gates - http://www.linux.org
"Chap. III v. X - Tortoises are to be Left Alone" - Om