Page 1 of 1

Installation Technique

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:39 pm
by makh
I have a question:

Well its easiest to install any application from .sh or .bin file.

When it comes to tar-ball, its every where said to prefer using .deb or the .rpm files, made for the specific linux distro.

If I want to just use only the latest tar-balls, as the latest isnt usually available via .deb or the .rpm files for the older versions of the linux distros. Whats the harm(s)? and Why I shouldn't?

Regards

Re: Installation Technique

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:34 pm
by lambda
makh wrote:If I want to just use only the latest tar-balls, as the latest isnt usually available via .deb or the .rpm files for the older versions of the linux distros. Whats the harm(s)? and Why I shouldn't?
two things package systems that use .deb or .rpm files have that you don't get with tarballs or similar files is dependency tracking and (semi-)automatic updates. if you try to install, say, rails with your distribution's tools, it'll automatically also install all the packages that rails depends on (ruby, rake, etc). if you use tarballs, you'll have to install the dependencies manually.

also, if a software bug's reported and fixed in rails, you'd have to download and install the update manually instead of using your distribution's package manager tools.

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:46 am
by nasacis
nothing difference between tar-ball and precompiled packages. from tar-ball packages, you can manipulate installation options enable/disable some features

Regards

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:06 pm
by lambda
that is incorrect. and, you can easily recompile with your own options; see "apt-get source" for example.