David C. Hart wrote: > On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 17:31, Stefan Hoelldampf wrote: > > David C. Hart wrote: > > > There is really no need to install Mozilla from an RPM since it has a > > > Windows type installation interface that allow you to choose which > > > components you want to install. I have found, though, that 1.5+ will > > > not use the same font structure as 1.4 and appearance suffers. > > > > Do you really know the advantages of a package management tool like RPM? > > Absolutely. I'm just pointing out that installing Mozilla from source is > not like compiling a kernel, for example. The setup program is very > similar to a Windows application. Many people who would not be > comfortable with the typical Linux source install would be perfectly > comfortable installing Mozilla without relying upon an RPM. I think you compare apples and oranges. You meant installing Mozilla from *pre*compiled binaries, so you don't have to compile anything, the installer only asks you what to install. Using RPM doesn't make a big difference in terms of putting the binaries into the right directory, but RPM really *cares* about dependencies, which you can't expect from the mozilla installer. If you want to compile Mozilla from source, you have to get around 36 MB for the latest tar.gz, kernel 2.6.1 has around 40 MB of compressed code. Since you don't have to compile everything for a working kernel, once you have configured it, it take only a few minutes to compile. Compiling Mozilla lasts hours... Regards, Andreas
