[KLUG Members] Source RPMs, anyone?

[Robert G. Brown]

Ralph Deal:
>> 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?
Bruce Smith:
>IMNOHO, you only need the source code when you plan on modifying it
>and/or recompiling it (like to change a compile option).

Bob Brown:
Pretty much. What I've found is that there are cases where Red Hat has
not made appropriate choices in this area for something I'm trying to
do, most often, when a couple (or more) packages are supposed to work
together, they have not been compiled with that in mind (or if they
have, the documentation isn't available, at least as far as I've been
able to discern. 

Bruce Smith:
>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)
Bob Brown:
Quite so, I've done this on two different platforms, AND two OS'es.

Bruce Smith:
>2)  Very often, Redhat SRPM's contain patches not included in the tar's.
Bob Brown:
Less of a factor for my agenda, but Red Hat is farily good about this,
although I'd like it flagged a little better. 

Bruce Smith:
>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....
>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.   :-)
Bob Brown:
That's true, most people will not be interested in this sort of thing,
which is why I don't expect to get a huge response (4 positives so far);
I didn't expect to get ZERO response, either. I beleive there are more 
people than those I've heard from so far... maybe not many, but some.
If you're one of them, please let me know by private e-mail: bob@acm.org

Most people like the system and software pretty much the way it is. Some
software has become a lot more configurable; 5 years ago some packages
REQUIRED a compile to be installed correctly, many of those have now
been modified to use configuration files. I don't run around recompiling
the system all the time, and I don't expect that people do this as a general
rule. I have seen that it's hard to predict what I'll need when, and the 
economics of bandwidth and disk space simply make life easier if it's
all here. In the spirit of community, I'm pleased to offer the result to
any takers.

One point I ought to make is that I am a software developer, and one of 
the things I find appealing about Linux is the level of control over 
configuration, for several reasons, including performance and interopera-
bility. I don't simply code applications and deliver them, increasingly
what I'm doing is delivering complete systems, boxes that plug into a 
netowrk and deliver a function to the customer. AS such the development
and configuration extends itself to the level of system libraries, and
integrating some extnsions into servers that are currently not available
any other way. It's also another way of squeezing out every last bit of
flexibility out of the software.

I expect that my audience are not typical... network administrators, other 
software developrs and system integrators, advanced users, and those who
are pushing their current knowledge and limits, either out of choice or
due to some compelling need.

Bruce Smith:
>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.

Bob Brown:
Yes, this is a good point...and cannot be emphasized enough...

** IF YOU "ONLY" WANT TO COMPILE A KERNEL, YOU DO NOT NEED SRPMs ***

Are we closer to it now? :)

						Regards,
						---> RGB <---