Binary or git/svn/etc

zephyrus17 · 2009-11-05 10:26:11

Is it better to install binaries from [extra]/[community]/etc or the same package but the git/svn version? git/svn is more bleeding edge (sometimes out of date), but is the program going to be better?

rebugger · 2009-11-05 10:41:22

if you tell me what you mean by "better" - i will tell you if it is or not.

Aprz · 2009-11-05 11:29:57

What do you think he means by "better"? In a community like this, in the software world, in the technological world, do you think that better would mean slower and less robust? After he answers your question maybe you'll tell him "Oh, you're using source code management so you'll most likely be downloading the source, not the binary, and in the end, it will be really up to how you compile it and what the dev has done to it main stream" which could've just been said in the first place.

rebugger · 2009-11-05 11:32:09

I just wanted to know if he means "having more features" with better or "being more stable" (no concrete question, no concrete answer)

zephyrus17 · 2009-11-05 11:41:13

Well, for example, for some programs like amsn2-git, it doesn't really work. Or mpd-git works, but the configuration isn't standard. But for others git programs, it's actually recommended. Or avant-window-navigator is better in the svn version. Should I be trying for the git/svn version first, and if that doesn't work, go for the binary?

Kooothor · 2009-11-05 11:58:59

Personally, I prefer to get the "stable" versions of softs.
But that's my way, I know a lot of ppl tend to get the "dev" version if they can.
I prefer stability over new features that I probably won't use.

Aprz · 2009-11-05 11:59:29

rebugger wrote:

I just wanted to know if he means "having more features" with better or "being more stable" (no concrete question, no concrete answer)

More features, obviously a subjective issue. Being more stable, general rule is the newer it is, the less stable/robust it is like Firefox nightly, going from mature Firefox-2.whatever to Firefox-3.0! - not a hassle to say. Compiled, theoritically faster, but not always witnessed and usually isn't if done blindly. All of these could quickly said and blown off. It just gave me a really bad rub off/vibe thinking "What the heck is this guy thinking?" Seriously, could be as short as this

Bleeding edge is usually less robust, compiling is usually faster and more robust, but can be a hassle. I cannot tell you whether a feature is better or not.

Period. That is really blowing it off too, not going into detail, giving him the answers he probably wants, and not coming off like somebody who needs their hand to be held to answer questions. Can you truly have little idea what he means by better? I mean... he is being so general too... it's almost a given he wants a general answer, not vim-a with feature so and so is better than vim-b. This is not a question he needs to go on specifics with.

Last edited by Aprz (2009-11-05 12:05:32)

tomk · 2009-11-05 12:27:42

Aprz - if you have an issue with rebugger, or anyone else, either take it up with him directly by mail, or report him. Otherwise, just answer the OP's question, or say nothing.

zephyrus17 - in general terms, it is impossible to say whether the released version or the SCM checkout of any application is "better". It will depend on each individual application, and it's development process. My personal approach is to stick with the latest upstream stable release, unless the SCM build has feature(s) that I need and that will not be released in the near future.

zephyrus17 · 2009-11-05 13:33:02

I do realise that. I guess there's no way to draw a line. Experimentation is the key, then.

Ranguvar · 2009-11-05 20:04:51

The general rule is, don't use dev tree versions unless:

1.) They have a bugfix you really need (in this case, it's much preferable to patch the latest stable version). Be prepared for more bugs, even security bugs.
2.) You know the program well and the dev tree has a cool new feature -- but be prepared for the whole thing to die on you. Doing this with stuff like GCC or the kernel is asking for trouble.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-11-05 10:26:11

Binary or git/svn/etc

#2 2009-11-05 10:41:22

Re: Binary or git/svn/etc

#3 2009-11-05 11:29:57

Re: Binary or git/svn/etc

#4 2009-11-05 11:32:09

Re: Binary or git/svn/etc

#5 2009-11-05 11:41:13

Re: Binary or git/svn/etc

#6 2009-11-05 11:58:59

Re: Binary or git/svn/etc

#7 2009-11-05 11:59:29

Re: Binary or git/svn/etc

#8 2009-11-05 12:27:42

Re: Binary or git/svn/etc

#9 2009-11-05 13:33:02

Re: Binary or git/svn/etc

#10 2009-11-05 20:04:51

Re: Binary or git/svn/etc

Board footer