<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.28.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Tue, 2010-12-28 at 21:55 -0700, Brielle Bruns wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
On 12/28/10 8:53 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> That's a rarity, most people are too scared to use anything other than
> their distros released packages, perhaps its laziness, perhaps
> they don't know any better, or perhaps they are just plain ignorant, I
> think it sadly says a lot bout the calibre of many system admins these days.
>
There are a few gotchas that can happen with self compiled source or
customized packages on a system that uses a package manager...
Dependencies can be upset if you use a self compiled library over a
packaged library - ie: if you have openssh, which depends on openssl,
and you want to hand compile openssl, you will either need to create a
dummy openssl package to 'provide' these dependencies, or force install
of the openssh package which may cause problems later on during upgrades.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Yes I agree to point, some package managers are intelligent enough to know about no-deps, and it means that, last time I checked apt has no clue about it, I recall the fun I had removing the deb postfix, easy on RHEL though, but even simpler with Slackware (given its not installed lol)<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
Package managers like aptitude will attempt to 'fix' these breaks, or
upgrade the package (unless you pin the dummy). Its a losing battle
sometimes unless you are going for an end user application rather then a
library.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Sometimes their attempts are not good enough, I use ubuntu LTS for the LTS purpose, else I'd go back to RH for it, and apt is a PITA, it almost wants to insist on being the be all and end all, ala MS *sigh* but to elaborate puts us further off topic here....<BR>
But back on topic, last LTS version of ubuntu didnt understand RR SPF, it was a nightmare removing the old version to install source, it wanted to remove half the blasted system, so I gave up and just installed source version over top of the installed binaries, when I dud LTS upgrade from 8.04 to 10.04, it had no problem updating, but I didnt like the old version still in use so once again installed source over top :)<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
You can usually 'override' the system libs and bins by making sure
/usr/local/{bin,lib} is in the path and linker before / and /usr... But
thats a good way to run into unexpected behavior at times.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Heh its nice to see 5.5 of MySQL no longer requires adding /usr/local/lib/mysql to ld.so.conf, it puts it in the right lib dir with identical config (well converted to CMake anyway, and don't get me started on that).<BR>
Oh MySQL, thats another thing that's way out of date on some of these so called "modern" distros.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
There's always tradeoffs when you use a certain type of setup... Quick
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep, its why on servers I use Slackware, I used to be a real RH fan, but as you pointed out, too many "gotchyas" when needing modern packages. Slackware makes it simple, never had a server upgrade fail through dependency hell :)<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
fast setup with package managers (debian, fedora, etc) but lacking
optimization and compiling customization... Or agonizing 12+ hour whole
system build/upgrade times but the system is highly optimized to your
specific build (if you've ever had to build qt/kde/gtk/etc from scratch
every time a new build comes out, you know what I mean).
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I used to build gnome, now _that's_ pain for you :D Just dont have the time, nor patience for that these days (sign of old age I guess).. So I let desktop distros do it for me hehe.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
and I think we've taken this so far off topic now, my apologies to the list mums/dads<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>