[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Stow

From: Eric Siegerman
Subject: Re: Stow
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 19:50:52 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 01:49:26PM -0700, Paul Sander wrote:
> Shouldn't be too hard to write a script that converts the output of
> "tar -tf" into an RPM spec.

Still doesn't help me to keep multiple versions installed and
usable at once.  Or can RPM etc. manage that trick somehow?

> >In my case, there are eight or ten machines, with at least three
> >flavours of *NIX.  That'd be three package-spec files to write
> >per package.  The overhead would dwarf any advantage.
> Again, there's the trade-off.  If you want to cater to established
> admins of the target machine, use the native packages.  If you want
> uniformity, use stow.  Either will work, it's just a question of who
> you can inconvenience more.

I *am* the admin of the target machines, and I swear by
uniformity.  Poof, conflict resolved :-)

Again, that last statement is *only* true for my sort of
situation; I was never attempting to claim that Stow was useful
for distributing binaries to people other than the person running
"make".  But then, my sort of situation is pretty common among
consumers of open-source software -- people with home Linux or
BSD boxes, admins of small-business sites, etc.


|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
The acronym for "the powers that be" differs by only one letter
from that for "the pointy-haired boss".

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]