Gnupg.1.2.0 Installation difference with rpm and tar.gz
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
avbidder at fortytwo.ch
Thu Dec 19 08:17:01 CET 2002
On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 07:00, Thanga Prakash S wrote:
> Dear Sir/Madam,
> I installed Gnupg 1.2.0 using gnupg-1.2.0.tar.gz.
> I found gpg file in the /usr/local/bin/gpg.
> I also upgraded Gnupg 1.2.0 using gnupg-1.2.0-2rh72.i386.rpm.
> I found gpg file in the /usr/bin/gpg.
> why is this difference?
Everything in /usr should be managed by your distribution/package
management system. Everything else (self compiled packages) should go
There are several reasons for this, a good one is that noone should need
to back up /usr, as everything can easily be installed again if the
set of installed packages is known - whereas /usr/local is almost
impossible to rebuild (semi-)automatically as all files are basically
'just there' (not managed by anything known).
 Yes, a restore from a full backup is of course still easier than a
reinstall. Backup policies vary.
> This leads to
It is rarely a good idea to have the same software installed twice in
different locations - it almost always invites trouble. Don't do it.
When you install the rpm, why compile by hand? Why install the rpm, when
you compiled by hand?
If you still have the build directory (where you did 'make install'):
many programs (sorry, don't know if gnupg does) have a 'make uninstall'
this email is protected by a digital signature: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg
NOTE: keyserver bugs! get my key here: https://fortytwo.ch/gpg/92082481
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 320 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20021219/ab793d17/attachment.bin
More information about the Gnupg-devel