Normally when I install apache, mysql, and php, I do it the old fashioned "make" way. Am I correct that the only advantage for apt-get is that it's more easier/user-friendly to do than ./configure stuff? Or would I get some other benefit from doing it through apt-get?



thank you
rw

Automatic updating of the package when bugs are discovered and new packages are built by the maintainer and uploaded would be one off the top of my head. Packages that should work out of the box so to speak would be another no messing around making sure you have everything you need when you compile. You can use the Debian source through apt-get source process and build your own package and install then the package system will know about your packages and will not overwrite libraries that you may have installed if you did not put them in /usr/local/.

Another advantage: speed. Apt-get does not need to compile/configure/whatever. The ./configure script is replaced with reading debconf and seeing what is installed in what version with what options (takes about 1/20 of the time as the ./configure scripts that I've seen). Make is replaced with (semi-)binaries that are designed to be compatible with any machine in each architecture (tons and tons faster). Make install is replaced with dpkg's copy-paste of appropriate files (maybe slightly faster). But the biggest advantage is, as HappyTux said, auto-updating. And if you have to use the ./configure, make, make install, then you can apt-get the source, which gives you all the advantages of regular apt-get except the speed.

More than just configuration ,apt-get will take care of all dependencies