On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 00:14 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 23:30, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > Yes, it's your freedom to give your 3 year old child a loaded gun and > > let it play with it. A "configure && make install" run as root is of a > > comparable quality. > > The part that you don't explain here is how the same person who > would have some mysterious problem with installing a non-packaged > program locally as the author designed will magically be able to > encapsulate the solution to that problem by writing a spec > file. > > > All I do is to tell you: If you want to avoid trouble, you're better off > > packaging packages as rpms on rpm based systems. > > I'll agree in general, but still don't see how a person who > would have trouble with a stock compile/install is going to > have that problem fixed. It just becomes a subset of the > problems in building the packaged version. ---- agreed but the projects that have some universality and activity to them will generally find someone who can provide the spec file to be included either as part of the tarball or can at least bundle an SRPM. Then as a last resort, there's always checkinstall (but I've never used it so don't go by me). Craig
