I appreciate all the advice from everyone the past couple of days. I have saved
the info from all of you will put it to good use.
Thanks to all.
Tim
Arlen Carlson wrote:
> Removing a tar.gz?
>
> The only pointer I can think of in this regard, is if the tar.gz was for a
> program that required compilation of source. (This is probably obvious, but I
> will state it anyway.) A 'make install' will generally put the programs where
> you need them, and a 'make deinstall' or sometimes a 'make clean' will remove
> them.
>
> On 28-Mar-99 Tim Shann wrote:
> >
> > I like rpms because they are so easy to uninstall. I have no clue how to
> > remove tar.gz installs. Anyone care to give lessons?
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > Michael Perry wrote:
> >
> >> On 27 Mar, Benjamin A. Rosenberg wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I have a question about RPM's. Why are they so much better then source?
> >> > I have used source for the last 5 years. When I try to use RPM's it's
> >> > usually a sticky situation.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for any input. :)
> >>
> >> Just my extremely subjective opinion and I use both. I like rpms for
> >> some things like I downloaded rpms for the latest gnome stuff because I
> >> wanted to see gnome running but then I decided I wanted to compile
> >> things so I found that some of the program's configure scripts had
> >> problems so I installed gtk/glib. I tend to use an rpm for something
> >> quick that is packaged on the suse 6 cd's. As an example, after doing
> >> the gnome thing, gimp would not run because of failed dependencies for
> >> gtk. The gnome list informed me that you can actually have two
> >> versions of gtk installed hence the gtkn and glibn on the gnome site.
> >> I then installed the gtk and glib rpms from the suse cd. I still could
> >> not manually configure gimp 1.0.2 due to some issues with gtk or gtkn
> >> or gtk devel. When I decided I wanted the gimp, I did a yast install
> >> and all it wanted was aalib which I selected for auto.
> >>
> >> So my answer is that I use the best of both worlds. I think rpm's work
> >> for me but I like the control of configuring. I like configuring also
> >> but if I want something that seems rather complex and someone has built
> >> an rpm spec for it, I tend to grab it. I am a wimp I guess; but I
> >> still like the easy way that rpm offers. I have been stung a few times
> >> like with the craziness surrounding the gtk upgrade path with rpms. I
> >> also have installed my own self-rolled libs and had rpm installs fail
> >> but configures, make, and make installs work for the same program.
> >>
> >> I gave some thought to compiling kde 1.1 until I saw the rpms for 1.1 on
> >> suse's update site. Too much of a temptation for me :)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Michael Perry
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> ----------------------
> >>
> >> --
> -----------------------------------
> Arlen Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> "I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions."
> -- Lillian Hellman
>
> This message was sent by XFmail (Linux)
>
> -o)
> /\\
> _\_v
>
> The penguins are coming...
> the penguins are coming...
> -----------------------------------
> --
> To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
> Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
> archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
--
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
