Re: To package or not to package (Was: [tlug] Well now I'm hosed - Dapper/Edgy died)

["Josh Glover" <jmglov@example.com>]

On 18/01/07, Sigurd Urdahl <sigurdur@example.com> wrote:

> Godwin, could you elaborate a bit more on why you believe source-based
> distros are better than package based?

I'm not Godwin, but I'll have my say if that is OK.

> I have seen circular dependencies create problems, but only been bitten
> by it a couple of times.

Same here; I just consider a couple of times a couple too many.

> And it's always been solvable,

In my experience, the solution is usually: reinstall. My worst
experience was trying to get Japanese working in Red Hat 7.1 or some
such.

> I believe it's been at least partly as an effect of not running the distro
> cleanly, but adding extra packages from "external sources".

There is one advantage to a source-based distro right there: it is
easy (at least in Gentoo) to package up a program that is not already
in the package system and install it cleanly. No worrying that the
FreshRPMs (or whatever you kids are using these days) version of the
package will clash with your Fedora layout.

> I find it very valuable to have well functioning package system in my
> distros.

As do I. Just remember that source-based distros also have package
systems that allow you to do all of the things you would expect:
install, upgrade, uninstall, query, etc.

> In production environments I
> always run stable versions of distros, thus fixes are backported, and
> the interface between the program and it's environment (the users, the
> other packages, me - the sysadmin) stays unchanged. I can keep my
> systems up to date with little risk or work.

This is one area where source-based distros are a little different. In
Gentoo, at least, there is no stable version per se (there are
packages marked stable in the Portage tree, but no guarantee of
"stability" is made of the combination of all stable packages), so it
is up to the admin to select the most appropriate versions of each
package. At least, you have that ability. In practise, you pretty much
install the latest stable versions of your packages, and then make a
few changes on a per-package basis as needed.

> Should a transition to source based distros make my life easier as a
> sysadmin? Would I have more fun as a desktop user?

The big advantage of a source-based distro to me, both as a sysadmin
and a desktop user, is that I have control over compile-time feature
selection. This helps prevent big dependency nightmares.

For example, on a headless server, I don't need the X extensions to
vim. I don't really want X installed at all, but on a binary distro, I
would have little choice in the matter (I am speaking from experience
that is a bit dated, but I remember it used to be next to impossible
to remove X from a server install of Red Hat).

I think you would have more fun, at least on the desktop side. Because
after all, what is more geeky than customising every last aspect of
every bit of software that you install (if you want to, of course--you
can always take the defaults). I have more fun with source-based
distros as a sysadmin too, because there is less frustration.

YMMV, of course, but you should give Gentoo a serious look on a
desktop box. Who knows, you might be the next convert. :)

-Josh