<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#333333" text="#CCCCCC">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/21/2014 05:26 PM, Fons Adriaensen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20140121172607.GB25390@linuxaudio.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:11:10PM +0000, Filipe Coelho wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And how are these installed ? Bypassing the distro package management
is a sure recipe for misery. Maybe not immediately, with a bit of
luck the binary you just copied to /usr/bin may work. But sooner or
later your users will get some serious trouble, because you're messing
up their systems. If that's what you want, go on...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I don't see how this is worse than having the users installing files
to /usr/local.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Really ? Package managers don't care about /usr/local and will never
touch it. It's a completely separate world. It exists just for that
reason.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I was referring to user-installed compiled software. Most of them
goes into /usr/local/.<br>
<br>
Re: I think having a bunch of files in /usr/local/ is much worse
than a single binary.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20140121172607.GB25390@linuxaudio.org"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I actually think it's much better, since it won't require root to
install. Just run the binary.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Oh dear. Such naivity is really touching...</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks :) /s<br>
<br>
Anyway, if a software requires stuff installed system-wide *and* it
can't work in a local dir, then I think distributing binaries is
useless for it.<br>
For those, yes, a package manager is not only better but I believe
required.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>