Re: [Pan-users] Re: ubuntu 0.117 binaries

[Eric Waguespack]

I wonder if Darren, or someone else would be so kind as to send me the script / commands used to compile the pan source into a .deb package? I am just curious because I occasionally install other packages from source and I would like to convert it to .deb so that I can benefit from the advantages already discussed.

On 10/21/06, Duncan <address@hidden> wrote:

Søren Boll Overgaard <address@hidden> posted
address@hidden, excerpted below, on  Sat, 21 Oct
2006 10:39:33 +0200:

> Hi
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 01:17:58AM +0000, Duncan wrote:
>>
>> I'd uninstall before installing from source, yes.  It shouldn't hose
>> anything up (besides the record for pan, but that's the point) if you
>> don't; just what the system thinks is installed won't be, and I prefer
>> to keep it consistent.
>
> I may be misreading your statement, but do you mean to say that the dpkg
> managed install will get hosed by a source install?

Just playin' it safe, mainly.  I assumed that he intended to overwrite,
not install in parallel, in which case it's best to have what the PM
thinks is there removed before replacing it a different way.  As I said,
the only thing that would be screwed would be the record of pan itself
since a different version would be installed than the db said, and the
user would understand that so no big deal, certainly for a "leaf" such as
pan as opposed to a "branch" such as a library, but it's still better to
have the package manager not track it rather than tracking the wrong
thing, just to keep the records as accurate as possible.

Of course if installing in parallel, than yeah, you'd want to keep the
packaged version installed as well, since in that case, /that/ would be
the point, and the database would still be correct, altho there'd be
something beyond that installed too.

> As for uninstalling source installs: That's about the best conceivable
> argument in favor of using package managers there is. Having to manually
> clean up after a source install is annoying, boring and error-prone
> (although pan is a small enough package to make it feasible).

Well, I'd say one of two good arguments.  The other being dependency
management, which dpkg is supposed to be better at than most.

> Ok, so, I might be a bit biased in favor of package managers and binary
> packages, but hey :)

Just because one is biased in favor of package managers, doesn't mean one
has to be using binary packages (says this Gentoo user)! =8^)  Certainly
what you say about package management is correct -- it brings many
advantages, but package management doesn't presuppose binaries. =8^)


--
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman



_______________________________________________
Pan-users mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users