Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
> Quick question,
>
> What's the difference between source RPMS and normal RPMS, apart
> from the obvious (being binary vs. source)?
That's the difference.
> If I installed any given software with it's SRPM, does that add it
> to the RPM database as *package* installed?
No, because the binary hasn't been installed. When you install the
SRPM, the source files, etc, get copied to /usr/src/redhat, and that's
about it.
You need to install the binary RPM if you want to run the package.
You can build the binary RPM from the SRPM by saying rpm --rebuild file.src.rpm
> Say I decided to upgrade that package later, could I download the
> RPM and do a rpm blah.rpm -Uvh and everything would be cool?
That would upgrade the binary not the source.
> I guess more importantly to my question, if I needed to install
> some software that relied on the presence of the first installed
> (and of course compiled) SRPM, would it be happy knowing that it's
> there?
?? I'm not sure of any software that relies on the presence of the
SRPM.
> Having SRPMS update the RPM db and do the additional useful stuff
> would make sense to me...
No.
> Surely they're not just a pseudo-swanky
> way to distribute your average (some might argue)
> extra-functionality-less tar.gz?
Yes, they are. More functionality than a tar.gz but essentially
the same concept. You still have to compile either.
----+------------------------+--------------------------
Del | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Christchurch, New Zealand
----+------------------------+--------------------------
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
