[KLUG Members] Source RPMs, anyone?

[Bruce Smith]

> I've used source RPMs only when I couldn't get the binary rpm to work on 
> my system.  Is your preference for source code because it allows for 
> modification of the source code itself or because the process of 
> installing from a source RPM allows you to modify the configuration?

IMNOHO, you only need the source code when you plan on modifying it
and/or recompiling it (like to change a compile option).

And the advantages of SRPM's over downloading a tar file, are:

1)  It's far easier to create binary RPM's from SRPM's.
    (and it's easier to manage and distribute RPM's)

2)  Very often, Redhat SRPM's contain patches not included in the tar's.

I've also used RPM's to create new version of a package.  i.e.:
I install the SRPM file:  foo-1.0.src.rpm   I download foo-1.1.tar.gz.
I modify foo's SPEC file to compile the new 1.1 version, and I build
binary RPM's for foo-1.1.i386.rpm.  Again, because RPM's are easier to
distribute across multiple Linux installs than binaries created from
compiling tar files.  And they are also easier to manage - update to 
new versions, remove the package, etc.

Of course if you never do any of the above, which I imagine is true for
a lot of people, then you probably have no need for SRPM's - updated or
otherwise.   :-)

One other point, because I get this question often.   You do _NOT_ need
any SRPM file for the kernel source code.  It comes in standard RPM
format on one of the three standard binary install CD's, and contains
all the source code needed to compile a new kernel.

--------------------------------------------
Bruce Smith                bruce@armintl.com
System Administrator / Network Administrator
Armstrong International, Inc.
Three Rivers, Michigan  49093  USA
http://www.armstrong-intl.com/
--------------------------------------------