CentOS http://blog.samat.org/taxonomy/term/40/0 en Distributing sources with modern Linux distributions http://blog.samat.org/2006/06/04/distributing-sources-with-modern-linux-distributions <div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Playing around with Ubuntu 6.06, I noticed that in the <i>Software Preferences</i>, that part of the default &#8220;Channels&#8221; (which are in actuality lines in /etc/apt/sources.list) include those for the Ubuntu&#8217;s packages&#8217;&nbsp;sources.</p> <p>I&#8217;m not sure why these are there by default&#8230; How many users actually need to recompile a package when the distribution came with a binary one? In my 5 yrs of using Linux, I&#8217;ve never needed to. Yes, I understand the whole free software and <span class="caps">GPL</span> thing, where sources must be available with software. This doesn&#8217;t mean that new users (a large part of Ubuntu&#8217;s user base) need to waste bandwidth and disk space on things they will hopefully <i>never</i> need to&nbsp;use.</p> <p>I don&#8217;t see the practical use for distributing sources with a distribution. If you do need to compile something to get an install up and running, you may need the source for one single piece of software, and you won&#8217;t be going to the sources included with the distribution&#8211;after all, if their original binary package didn&#8217;t help, what use is re-creating a binary for the same version? You&#8217;ll be getting the latest version off the Internet and using that. It probably won&#8217;t even be by the makers of the distribution, but upstream somewhere. E.g. ditching a vendor kernel for one from <a href="http://kernel.org/">kernel.org</a>.</p> <p>With Ubuntu, I can&#8217;t really complain much, as one only ends up downloading some relatively small text files. Back in the days when I used Redhat it was a different story: I&#8217;d spend a month downloading the latest Redhat <span class="caps">ISO</span> image, half of which was source RPMs that as a Linux newbie I had no use&nbsp;for.</p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-1 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Topic:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tag/Linux" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">Linux</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tag/CentOS" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">CentOS</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tag/Ubuntu" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">Ubuntu</a></div></div></div> Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:27:34 +0000 Samat Jain 107 at http://blog.samat.org RHEL4/CentOS 4 placement of SSL certificates http://blog.samat.org/2005/06/23/rhel4/centos_4_placement_of_ssl_certificates <div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p><a href="http://www.centos.org/">CentOS 4.0</a> (and thus by assocation Redhat Enterprise Linux 4.0) seems to place their <span class="caps">SSL</span> certificates in <kbd>/usr/share/ssl</kbd> rather than in <kbd>/etc/ssl</kbd> like Debian and Slackware&nbsp;do.</p> <p>They just <em>had</em> to be different&#8230; It&#8217;s yet another easy-to-forget path that needs to be backed&nbsp;up.</p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-1 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Topic:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tag/Linux" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">Linux</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tag/CentOS" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">CentOS</a></div></div></div> Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:14:00 +0000 Samat Jain 39 at http://blog.samat.org