on 7/3/01 2:18 AM, Marius Andreiana at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[this is wordy :)]
> Hi
>
> I'm curios how others are handling packages on production servers.
> Curently our sysadmins compile openssl,apache,php and other libraries
> from sources.
>
> Do you think it would be better (easier to maintain) to install
> apache and other libraries from rpm, and from sources only
> php?
this really is one of those holy war things. i prefer to compile everything
by hand, for two reasons really. one is that when i started doing this,
there weren't any package managers, and when they did arrive, the package
managers weren't really up to it. installing one package often broke
something else. i _had_ to roll my own (including the kernel).
my servers don't have users, and i don't have anything on my box i don't
need, so keeping it all straight in my head is relatively easy. which brings
me to the second reason.
for me, compiling myself is just easier. i create a file for every package
(as in tarball) i compile. it contains the configure command with all the
pertinent switches. i leave the file in the source directory. the next time
i need to compile, i execute the file and compile. piece of cake. i know
what's up with my box, because i did it.
however, i have some friends who know way more about system administration
than i do, and they swear by rpm. they like it so much they created their
own package based on redhat and rpm, http://www.tummy.com/krud/
i actually used their distro for about a year, but returned to slackware so
i could be in control :)
i think you'll find that this is really a personal choice thing for most
admins, and isn't the kind of thing i'd want management dictating to me.
folks should use whichever method they feel most comfortable with and that
causes _them_ the least headaches.
>
> Remember in some companies even the kernel is upgraded from rpm
> b/c of easier maintenance and less chances to screw something up.
it seems as if you've already decided which side you fall on :) i'll just
say that from where i sit, some of your logic seems flawed. sure, the first
time you compile a package from source, it takes a little while. but once
you get it right, then the next time is a piece of cake. it's learning which
switches to turn on or off that takes the time. but, that's why you have
good sysadmins, right? :)
i think the easier maintenance arguement is still open for discussion. as i
said, i don't buy it. as for less chances for screwing things up, i really
disagree. as i said, once you figure out how to compile a package, each of
the next times are a piece of cake. when you use rpm's, you are stuck with
the way they compiled it and you have to wait for a package to come out when
a bug fix is released.
curious, why do you think it's ok for your sysadmins to compile php but not
the other stuff?
-- mike cullerton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
