Gnupg.1.2.0 Installation difference with rpm and tar.gz

[Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder]

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
into /usr/local.

There are several reasons for this, a good one is that noone should need
to back up /usr[1], 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).

[1] 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'
command.

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 320 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20021219/ab793d17/attachment.bin