Tony Nelson wrote: > At 1:13 PM -0500 5/8/07, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: >> Tony Nelson wrote: >>> At 10:39 AM -0500 5/8/07, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: >>> ... >>>> In the long run, I feel it is worth the extra effort to build an RPM >>>> for the tarball package. It makes managing the packages on your >>>> system easier. That is what packaging systems were designed for in >>>> the first place. >>> ISTM that a tool could make a reasonable RPM from a tarball, as long as the >>> tarball doesn't have an install script, as all that is needed is the list >>> of files. Checkinstall is more dynamic and dangerous than just looking at >>> the output of tar -t, in order to be able to handle install scripts. Are >>> there tools to make RPMs from tarballs that I haven't found? >>> >>> For that matter, RPM could install tarballs directly, if given an install >>> root. RPM could even usually tell when a file conflict could be treated as >>> a config file and do the .rpmnew or .rpmsave thing. Perhaps in the history >>> of RPM there is a reason this did not happen, or existed and was removed? >> As far as RPM installing from source, > ... > > You are the first to mention "source". We're talking about /installing/ a > tarball, not /building/ from a tarball. > The thread started with building/installing from a source tarball. I guess I missed where we shifted to talking about binary tarballs. They are not used too often, so you should specify that you are talking about binary tarballs. >> I am not sure that trying to build the option of installing from a >> tarball is a good idea. Even though it would involve extra steps, >> improving the tools that will create a .spec file from a tarball, >> building the RPM, and then becoming root to install it still looks >> like a better way to do it. It gives you an extra chance to look at >> just what you are installing. (I can picture a few ways to hide >> nasty scripts inside a make file, or in the RPM install scripts.) > > There is no makefile. It is a binary tarball, so make would not be > invoked, only "cd / ; tar -xf <tarball>" (or wherever one decides to > install it). I fail to see any advantage of binary tarballs. You lose the security of the RPM format. You would have to add a signature of some type to be sure that the file isn't a fake. If you need any scripts to go with the install, that is something else to add. I guess I don't see the point of having rpm handle them, instead of building a proper RPM if you want rpm to keep track of the files. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
