Re: Why compiling.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:55:23 -0400
Gary Dale <garydale@rogers.com> wrote:
> On 10/07/12 08:03 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > This is a very basic question but confusing me for very long. so i
> > need your help.
> >
> > why people do compiling. i have heard many time that people are
> > compiling kernel on debian.
> > what is the reason for this? i am using debian for almost 1.5 year and
> > have been using it on different platform in CLI mode. but no need of
> > compiling in this time window.
> >
> > secondly i have read that people are compiling Squid SAMBA and all
> > the other packages but why. i am using KVM, squid samba etc for
> > almost more then 1 year and all the servers are providing me what ever
> > i asled all the services are very comprehensive and could be fit in
> > any environment then why compiling?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> There is little need to compile code. In fact, doing so will probably
> have a negative impact on your system's stability, especially if you use
> other than the official sources.
Here's my case: I run Stable + Backports, and I want aircrack. It isn't
in Stable, and trying to install it from Sid will force me to upgrade
all kinds of core libraries. [I haven't actually tried compiling it
yet, and for all I know, it may have real dependencies on the later
libraries.]
> People who prepare the individual packages or distributions are usually
> the only ones who need to compile code. However, some brave/foolhardy
> souls must have the latest code from the developer's source and compile
> their own. This is invariably a bad idea.
>
> When you leave the safety of your distribution's code repositories, you
> become responsible for managing the various inter-dependencies between
> programs and libraries. This is not a trivial task.
>
> If you need later code than is available from the official repositories,
> look for backports or, in the case of Debian, move to testing. In the
> testing repositories you get up to date code that is somewhat stable for
> non-critical work.
aircrack isn't in testing.
> Compiling from the official sources is a slightly different issue. For
> example, some people will compile a custom kernel from the official
> sources to do one of several things:
> - create a kernel that doesn't need an initramfs - everything is built in
> - create a smaller kernel that contains only the options they need -
> rendering it non-portable
And to get rid of all sorts of code that is irrelevant to my machine,
which doesn't even have the hardware for most of it. There are surely
also security benefits from not having all kinds of superfluous kernel
mode code hanging around.
And why do I care whether the kernel I compile locally for a
specific machine is portable?
...
> However, these situations are rare. For the vast majority of
people,
> compiling is something you shouldn't worry about. The package
> maintainers do a great job of getting everything to work together
> properly. Don't undermine their work.
I certainly agree that compiling is rarely necessary, and ofter /
usually a bad idea.
Celejar
Reply to: