Compiling vs RPM

shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin Icrontian
edited December 2005 in Science & Tech
I'm using Fedora Core 3.

I'm going to be installing apache/php/mysql. Is it better to use the RPMs provided (via yum or the software's website), or to compile them from source?

Comments

  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited October 2005
    why are using fedora 3 at this time?
  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin Icrontian
    edited October 2005
    I didn't know 4 was out - which it apparently is.

    However, the question still stands.
  • GrayFoxGrayFox /dev/urandom Member
    edited October 2005
    Compiling will give you faster proformence.


    Anyways why are you using fc its so bloated ;D .
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited October 2005
    I'm always for the RPMs - it's just way easier, and honestly the performance benefit is negligible and probably doesn't outweigh the benefit of the stability of a tested package.
  • IamMrRayIamMrRay Otis, MA
    edited November 2005
    FC 5 is out, im still using 3 im waiting for the new book when it gets to stores or i might order it. but...if you guys know something better is out there---please tell :D
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Geeky, in my own way Naples, FL Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    Shwaip,

    Where you get max performance increase from compiling is when you compile a kernel custom to your core hardware or as close to custom as possible. Sometimes, a module from mfr must be used, then also, compiling comes into play. This is complex, study it first and keep your old kernel around until the new kernel is tested, please.

    RPM's are hardware independent normally, though in the past some compiled for 386 gen could get much improvement in speed by being compiled on a 686 box.

    For what you want to do, the RPM's probably would be easiest and decently speedy-- as Prime corectly said.
  • IamMrRayIamMrRay Otis, MA
    edited November 2005
    ooOoOooOoooOOOOOooOo sounds nice :D

    I will definitely check it out. Is it open source? :p
  • RobRob Detroit, MI
    edited November 2005
    FC5 is broken badly and beta. Use FC4 or something else in a release version.

    As for the RPM's try to stay with the package manager whenever possible for more reasons than I care to type out. Also, recompiling your kernel is usually a waste of time unless you have a direct requirement such as adding file system support for unusual boot partitions or changing the stack size for some modules. Some people like to stray versions, but most don't know enough about the differences to make that choice. It's a modular kernel for a reason, you can compile new modules from the source without rebuilding the kernel and forcefully remove things you don't want to load. Unless your using something from 1995 or really strange hardware it's already optimized for your platform as well.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    *cough* Gentoo *cough* :rolleyes2

    Seriously, compiles for you, easy updates through portage, damn near everything is automatic.
  • RobRob Detroit, MI
    edited November 2005
    Portage is an excellent package manager, and also works well with binary distribution as well as source. I ran a gentoo fork for a distributed mail filtering cluster for a while. Total control and total maintenance is a large time investment. After I considered my decision to use it a mistake, yet one of the programmers fell in love so much he based another production project on it and still maintains it to this day. It was wrong for the cluster I was doing, but right for his situation.

    In general though, Gentoo is more for hobbiests and students as-is out of the box. Very few actually need that level of customization. That is exactly what Gentoo is, the most flexable and customizable set of packages and tools. Compiling is an awesome way to learn how things work. Sometimes, when you get into really advanced situations the total control it gives is an advantage too. But, in general backporting patching is more suitable for a production use. Once you have to recompile half your system for one package update gentoo isn't as friendly. You will want to learn your ebuilds real quick so you can send out your custom binarys to all of your systems after a single compile. If you deviate too far and backport your patches like debian or RHEL then you set yourself up for a large amount of work. It's a rock and a hard place, but really powerful way to build your own environment.

    If you like it for a desktop great, but the first time I was in the datacenter and needed a package on my laptop 'right now' it required building nearly 20 deps. Not exactly a good day and the last time I used it for my workstation.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    Hmm, not sure how the last line is a valid argument. If it NEEDED those deps then you would have had to get them from somewhere regardless what package system or such you were using. If they were optional deps then you could have tried "USE=-*" emerge blah or even telling it to emerge it without any deps and seeing if that worked...
  • RobRob Detroit, MI
    edited December 2005
    Hmm, not sure how the last line is a valid argument. If it NEEDED those deps then you would have had to get them from somewhere regardless what package system or such you were using. If they were optional deps then you could have tried "USE=-*" emerge blah or even telling it to emerge it without any deps and seeing if that worked...

    Umm... the topic is source vs RPM. If it were a binary distribution I would not have had to compile, which is the time consuming part when your uplinked at 100M
Sign In or Register to comment.