On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:20:51AM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > Bart Whiteley wrote: > > >I'm looking for arguments for why we should build RPMs from source code > >instead of precompiled binaries. I've read Maximum RPM, and Ed mentions a > >couple of things, but his comments are meant for people who are building > >RPMs out of other peoples' code, not for shops developing apps which will > >be shipped as RPMS. > > > >What arguments can I use to make my case? Perhaps I'm mistaken. Is it not > >such a crime to build RPMS from precompiled bins instead of source? > Just my opinion.. and I'm not sure it will be a popular one. > > If you are creating a commerical application, that you have no plans to > ever deliver source to the customer then frankly it doesn't matter. In > fact in your case (with what you described) I would feel more comfortable > delivering binary rpms produced from binaries as it avoids "rocking the > boat" in the build system. Even so building from scratch under the rpm umbrella helps you automate your builds and increase reproducibility. The specfile isn't anything else than the written steps needed to produce the binary (and then to install & package it). The only reason I can imaging against full rpm builds, is if you want to ship the specfile in order for adjustemnts to different distributions. I.e. some else than the people building it needs to (re)package it. -- Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de
Attachment:
pgp00008.pgp
Description: PGP signature