On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:57:15 -0600, Ross Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 16:10 -0600, Arctic Fidelity wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:24:40 -0600, G. Roderick Singleton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 11:19 -0800, Paul Duncan wrote:
>
>> There is an independently built slackware version
>> available, but I've not managed to get to work on a
>> stock Slackware 10.2 system. In desperation I'm
>> currently downloading the source code to have a go at
>> building it myself. Has anyone on the users list done
>> this, and are there any pitfalls to watch out for?
>
> You
> may want to check if you have rpm2tgz available and if not install it.
I realize that this is possibly something of a personal preference, but
I
would just like to put my vote in saying how much I really dislike when
a
program's binaries are distributed only in RPM format. I dislike the
rpm2tgz utility, and the whole process of having to convert an rpm to a
tgz. I would really prefer it if binary distributors would be kind
enough
to non-rpm distributions and provide, for example, tgz and deb packages
as
well as rpm formats. From what I understand, the work is not that hard,
and I believe that the overall ease and benefits of flexibility and
choice
for the end-user is well worth it.
Just my little two cents here. I guess you could say it's a bit of a
non-technical petpeeve of mine.
If this were not freely distributable software I would agree, but
because it is:
Google 'openoffice deb' for sites that offer deb packaged openoffice.
For a tgz version of OOv2.0.1 there is:
http://www.linuxpackages.net/pkg_details.php?id=7951
I see, yes, linuxpackages.net does seem to be the de facto standard for
Slackware packages, but I think it should be noted as well, that a good
deal of people are uncomfortable or unable to obtain the software from a
3rd party packaging unit. The reasons vary, but one that I have
encountered is if they are a business, and have semi-strict policy
regarding the procedures for obtaining software online. Therefore, if such
a situation exists, it is very difficult for that company to then "screen"
these third party sites to verify their safety. (Largely this is a lot of
beaurecratic junk, but I have seen it happen, first hand.) The addition of
correct MD5 or GPG signed packages helps.
For some people, I think there is a certain...presumption that packages
from the original site are safer, or more reliable, than those distributed
by third parties.
- Arctic
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
