[plug] re opening linuxconf

[Beau Kuiper]

On Sun, 6 May 2001, Jason wrote:

>
> On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 02:07:43PM +0800, Beau Kuiper wrote:
> >
> > Whats tedious in:
> >
> > ./configure --help *get useful options*
> > ./configure *useful options*
> > make
> > run the program *if I want to test it before I install*
> > make install *if I want to permanately install it*
> >
> Your choice:
> 1. Search for program foo
> 2. Download source for program foo (usually bigger than binaries)
> 3. Read docs for program
> 4. ./configure *useful options*
> 5. make
> 6. figure out why it's not compiling. Hunt down the .so files it's
> complaining about not having and download them
> 7. repeat until it finally compiles
> 8. make install
>
> or:
>
> 1. apt-get install foo
> 2. setup 'useful options' in the config menus it gives you during the
> install
>
> and if you decide you don't want it:
> apt-get remove foo

heh, I really don't have many problems anymore. Most of the common
libraries are on my system already

But I admin that using tarballs is harder than a package system. But you
ussually have to read the docs to use it anyway, and INSTALL in most
programs is just the standard GNU stuff. Virtually all programs compile
and install cleanly out of the tarball.

I suppose I really like using tarballs because it helps give me an insight
into how the programs and give me a chance to modify the source code when
I need to.

>
>
> > But why bother with a packaging system at all. The main advantages to
> > packaging systems are:
> >
> > 1) Dependancies are managed for you. But somethings this can burn you too.
> >    Start installing your own libraries and packages outside this system,
> >    and you are left in a situation where a package may require dependacies
> >    which you installed manually, but the packaging system knows nothing
> >    about.
>
> See the above comment about missing .so files (this is my experience with
> trying to compile from source). Dependencies make that process so much
> easier. Plus if you know you have the dependencies installed, not just from
> packages you can tell the package manager to ignore failed dependencies.

And the package system database gets to such a stage where it is useless
because all packages are force installed.

>
> > 2) Every program on the system is cataloged and packages can be quickly
> >    removed and installed. Start installing programs manually and you lose
> >    this ability.
>
> As above for problems this can cause with dependencies. As for less easy
> removal of manually installed packages, that's your problem for not
> installing from the package.

What if a package for said program is not avaliable. What happens if it is
a significant security fix you are installing on some obscure program
whose package gets rarely updated.

>
> > 3) Upgrading packages. Even though the packaging system can upgrade your
> >    package, it cannot garrentee that every dependant package will continue
> >    to work. Older package systems can't even upgrade many packages because
> >    other programs are dependant on that specific version.
>
> *cough*RPM*cough*
> That's one thing I couldn't stand about rpm packages. (The other was trying
> to manually find and install thousands of dependencies-of-dependencies of
> different programs)
> Debian does it right with having different releases of packages available,
> where each version of a package is known to work properly with everything
> else.

RPM is where most of my package experience is from. I admit apt is far
superior in this regard.

>
>
> > 4) Working with multiple systems. Packaging systems allow the simple
> >    deployment of packages to lots of systems. Installing stuff manually
> >    doesn't give you this benfiet
> >
> > The main advantages to not bothering with packaging systems are.
> >
> > 1) You can compile and install anything, even if no-one bothered to make a
> >    package for it. Using the packaging system to do this is a pain because
> >    you have to create the package yourself, and determine where it fits,
> >    what dependancies it has, ect. This has the disadvantage of allowing
> >    you to trash your system if you are not careful. I am also aware Debian
> >    has packages for almost anything.
>
> Using a packaging system doesn't mean you _can't_ compile anything from
> source. And chances are if theres no package then nothing's going to require
> it as a dependency so theres no point making a package out of it, just
> install from source (or be slack and wait until someone else makes a package
> :) )
>
> > 2) You can upgrade libraries easily. You can also break lots of programs
> >    easily too, if you are not careful.
>
> apt-get update;apt-get upgrade is easy enough for me
>

are debian able to check that changes to a minor, yet common library (for
example the curses library) don't break any of the thousands of programs
that may rely on it. There are no garrentees, even with packages.

> > 3) You can change the compile configuration easily. You can easily do
> >    funky things like install samba twice on the same machine into
> >    different subtrees (which requires changes in compile time options,
> >    for log files ect.)
>
> This is one I do agree with you on. Every packaging system I've used
> complains "package foo is already installed" if you try to install another
> copy somewhere else.
>
> > I know most people can get away with using packaging systems, and benefit
> > greatly from their abilities, I just don't like to use them. Maybe they
> > will become intellegent enough not to XXXX me off one day.
>
> Oh well...freedom of choice...don't you love free software? :)
> I'd choose a package manager just cause they're so much easier to work with.
>
Yep

Beau Kuiper
kuiperba at cs.curtin.edu.au