On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:25:56AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: > > To get 3.1.7? Disregarding that, I should jump through the hoops of > recompiling a F13 RPM rather than just compile from the tar? Why? Every > extra stage like that introduces the chance of incidental errors, of stuff > that doesn't translate precisely through that stage. I'm not doubting it > generally can work, just that there's anything "proper" about it. Generally > native source is the gold standard. The farther upstream you go, the better > the quality gets, the more bugs are fixed, and the more control you have > over how and where the stuff installs on your systems. You really believe this? If so, why do you bother with CentOS, or any package managed distro? Native builds are *never* the way to go, but I quite refuse to waste my time pointing out the many drawbacks of such compared to taking a few moments to properly - yes, *properly* - make SRPMs and and rebuilding *those* on the target platforms. The "gold standard" is that procedure, not building source kits that can, and *will* walk all over the rest of your system. Just because it may not have happened yet is nothing but pure luck. > There can be an argument that for some stuff that passes through RHEL the > extra attention adds some quality control (ignoring the counterexample of > the long history of RH manging kernels; they seem to have gotten better > about that lately), but stuff in EPEL? Really? Some quality control? Really? I can see this discussion is going no where and you have your mind made up. John -- He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. There nearly always is method in madness. It's what drives men mad, being methodical. -- G. K. Chesterton, The Fad of the Fisherman (1922)
Attachment:
pgpc79HoaNeLV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
