LinuxQuestions.org
LinuxAnswers - the LQ Linux tutorial section.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 07-11-2013, 04:46 PM   #1
anonymousLQ
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Distribution: Crux and Slackware
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
R U a source or binary person


greetings

I prefer compiling software from source and only use pre-compiled binaries if I am unable to do so from source. What is your preferred way of installing software????????????????????
 
Old 07-11-2013, 04:56 PM   #2
Timothy Miller
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Arizona, USA
Distribution: Debian Jessie, OpenSuse 13.1, Chakra.
Posts: 710

Rep: Reputation: 112Reputation: 112
Binary. It's faster to install, and with 64-bit software, there's nowhere near as many options that can be added/omitted to improve performance compared to 32-bit. Since I made the jump to 64-bit quite a few years ago now, I only compile software that isn't available in binary. And even then, I'm more likely to find an alternative that is rather than compile from source.
 
Old 07-11-2013, 06:13 PM   #3
itsgregman
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: North Carolina
Distribution: Pclinuxos, Slackware, salix
Posts: 146

Rep: Reputation: 37
my experience is somewhat limited and while I do use mostly binary packages I've found that packages compiled from source tend to be more stable and/or reliable. I base that on programs I've found That when installed from a distro's binary repo's either wouldn't run at all or ran but were buggy, while if I compiled the same program from source it worked flawlessly.
Others might have different experiences but that is mine.
 
Old 07-11-2013, 06:37 PM   #4
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,999

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I tend to compile from source. It's usually both quick and easy, and I can always get the very latest version of the software if that's what I need. Also, dependency issues tend to show themselves during compilation, and the error messages are usually quite clear about what file or library is missing or needs to be upgraded.

Having said that, I've recently gotten into the habit of making packages of the newly compiled programs and then installing that package, rather than just running "make install". It makes it slightly easier to remove or upgrade the software later on.
 
Old 07-11-2013, 07:16 PM   #5
suicidaleggroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Location: Colorado
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS
Posts: 3,006

Rep: Reputation: 1051Reputation: 1051Reputation: 1051Reputation: 1051Reputation: 1051Reputation: 1051Reputation: 1051Reputation: 1051
Binary through the distro's central package management system.

Ever tried to keep a program that you've compiled from source up-to-date as new releases are rolled out? How about 20 of those programs? It gets real old, real fast.
 
Old 07-11-2013, 11:16 PM   #6
Z038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 804

Rep: Reputation: 157Reputation: 157
I mostly compile from source. I use slackbuild scripts as much as possible, and most of those compile from source. Unless a binary package comes from a source I trust, I worry about whether it may have been compromised, or might not function correctly on my system. And if I compile from source, I know whether I'm missing any dependencies, and I can choose the build options I want.
 
Old 07-12-2013, 09:35 PM   #7
frankbell
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Mageia, Mint
Posts: 7,932

Rep: Reputation: 1495Reputation: 1495Reputation: 1495Reputation: 1495Reputation: 1495Reputation: 1495Reputation: 1495Reputation: 1495Reputation: 1495Reputation: 1495
I guess I'm a whatever is easiest kind of guy.

On Slackware, I use Slackbuilds as much as possible. On distros with repos, I generally with the package manager.

I am quite willing to compile from sources if I need to. If I must, I generally get the sources from sourceforge, the project homepage, or some other site that has proven itself trustworthy.
 
Old 07-12-2013, 10:43 PM   #8
bloody
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2013
Location: Berlin
Distribution: Gentoo, Debian
Posts: 158

Rep: Reputation: 23
I'd probably prefer binary, but i like the flexibility that Gentoo provides, so build-from-source it is.
 
Old 07-13-2013, 04:11 AM   #9
Knightron
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Planet Earth
Distribution: Slackware.
Posts: 1,338
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 158Reputation: 158
I like the concept of building from source, alas in my experience i don't know how to do it properly, so i'm not very good at it, so i tend to stick to binary unless i have too. I've only recently begun backporting and editing Debian packages; once i become confident doing that, i may teach my self to compile better, and make my own packages.
 
Old 07-13-2013, 07:20 AM   #10
ozar
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: USA
Distribution: Arch Linux
Posts: 374

Rep: Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymousLQ View Post
greetings

I prefer compiling software from source and only use pre-compiled binaries if I am unable to do so from source. What is your preferred way of installing software????????????????????
Hello

If I'm running something like Crux or Gentoo, I always build all packages from source. Otherwise, I stick with binaries on most other distros because I become overly impatient with certain package builds from source.
 
Old 07-13-2013, 01:03 PM   #11
TuxAnDroid
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Distribution: PClinuxOS 64 | Android 4.1.2
Posts: 9

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Binaries with dependency checking. But I will use source only when necessary. I recently installed ccrypt from source and tovid from svn

I notice some said slackbuilds, isn't that the same as source installation via a script to automate the process

Last edited by TuxAnDroid; 07-13-2013 at 01:05 PM.
 
Old 07-13-2013, 01:57 PM   #12
David Trest
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Distribution: CentOS/RHEL, Backtrack, many more.
Posts: 58

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Miller View Post
Binary. It's faster to install, and with 64-bit software, there's nowhere near as many options that can be added/omitted to improve performance compared to 32-bit. Since I made the jump to 64-bit quite a few years ago now, I only compile software that isn't available in binary. And even then, I'm more likely to find an alternative that is rather than compile from source.
This.

There's very few reasons to build from source other than "for a challenge". Pretty much the big two are for minimalist programming on small platforms (resurging with the emergence of the Raspberry Pi and Arduino) and security, for ultra-hardened platforms.

Binary/packaged installs are easier to upgrade and remove when something goes wrong or needs to be patched, as well.
 
Old 07-13-2013, 08:57 PM   #13
YellowApple
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2013
Location: Truckee, California, United States
Distribution: Slackware, openSUSE, Debian,Slackware, openSUSE, OpenBSD
Posts: 91

Rep: Reputation: 33
I go either way, depending on the system and what I'm able to do. As a Slackware user, I've come to appreciate slackbuilds.org, which wraps up program source for not-included-by-Pat software in the same "SlackBuild" scripts that Pat uses for Slackware itself; another program called sbopkg automates the download and installation processes as well, making for a quite convenient build/installation process for source-distributed software.

I think now that I'm more comfortable with how source tarballs tend to work (i.e. "./configure && make && make install" unless README says otherwise), I'm starting to enjoy the idea of being able to customize my software to my heart's content. Yay FOSS!
 
Old 07-14-2013, 04:47 PM   #14
809areacode
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2011
Location: Godthåb, Grønland
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 28

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Use packages for the most part, though if I want to become familiar with the software or configure it granularly, I compile. I usually compile Apache.
 
Old 07-15-2013, 10:26 PM   #15
H4CK2013
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Location: NC
Distribution: Mint 15
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I will use both when and where appropriate
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: World of Padman - Open-Source First-Person Shooter Game for Linux LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 08-24-2009 09:50 AM
Binary or source adrian_mx Linux - General 4 02-09-2006 07:04 PM
Open source, posix compliant, person renderer? Elomis Linux - Software 0 01-10-2005 04:21 PM
Source or Binary? dick_onion53 Fedora 4 12-31-2004 06:04 PM
Source or binary? NonSumPisces Linux - Distributions 2 06-06-2004 03:01 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:49 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration