What's wrong with RPM?

[wolfman8k]

How come a lot of people don't like RPM packages? What advantage does compiling from source have? More control?

RPM's let you easily install programs, and more importantly easily uninstall.

Can someone explain this to me please?

[nholowat]

Basically, if you use the source code to compile your own, you're using the libraries on your system, instead of the binaries on whoever did the compile. It's not bad if you just use RPM's from the distributor, but compiling it on your own system with files and libraries installed on that system tends to make it more stable.

Or because the Revolutions per Minute are too fast to keep track off, and your head might spin off....

Have a great day

[wolfman8k]

What about src rpms?

[Strike]

RPMs have just proven to simply not work sometimes when I have tried to help someone (or tried to use them myself), so I dislike them. That and some of their design principles (like file-based dependencies) I totally disagree with.

They're getting better though.

[Chatterjee]

rpms work very well when associated with red carpet (from ximian)... dependencies are resolved and installations are smoother.

-S

[Jomboni]

The fact that stuff is easier to uninstall seems to be rpms main strength. It's also easier to set them up (when they work).

Often, programs can be compiled with certain settings or features of your choice, if the rpm build doesn't have these features, you're out of luck.

[error27]

using rpms is much better than using the source for long term.

I use debian and they tend to take package management more seriously than anyone else and that's awesome.

But recently rpms have been getting better also I think.

I always tell people to install from rpms because in theory they should work perfectly. Installing from source doesn't work well in theory or in practise.