[mythtv-users] 2rpm or not 2rpm, that is the question (was: Updated MythTV RPMs)

[Cedar McKay]

> why so hostile with rpms? They don't bite ... ;)

I'm not. The documentation already suggests rpms for every required 
prerequisite that  Red Hat happens to offer as an rpm. I _am_ nervous 
about unofficial, unsupported rpms like the mythtv rpm and the alsa 
rpm. If rpms are the way to go, why doesn't alsa-project.org offer an 
rpm itself?  In general I think it is the best idea to install in the 
manner intended by the creators of the software. Any time a project 
itself offers an rpm I'm open to using it.


> Now is setting up mythtv "a complicated process" or a "simple 
> configure, make,
> make install" (rhetorical)?
>
The "complicated process" is getting the prerequisites installed 
(particularly  xmltv) and fighting through the libexpat, lang=c and so 
on. The actual installation of mythtv is dirt simple whether you use an 
rpm or configure, make, make install.


> You should ask yourself the purpose of rpms (or of Debian dpkg or any
> packaging system).
> And not only for mythtv, but also for anything else: They
> should ease the installation and setup of software and deal with
> dependencies.
The threshold for getting mythtv installed (at least on Red Hat) right 
now is high. Much higher than I would like. But really right now the 
hardest part of the install is probably xmltv, and lirc. Maybe sound 
too. I don't see the mythtv rpm helping with the hard parts, but they 
do cause newbies to depart from the flow of the documentation, and 
strike off into unknown/unsupported territory.


> They don't suggest replacing documentation!
>
The documentation does not describe how to deal with installing using 
rpms. So right now, newbies come along and they are caught between 
following the documentation, or taking a shortcut and using the "easy" 
rpm, which at this point is undocumented and unknown to most of the 
people prepared to help newbies with their problems. I would be _way_ 
more receptive to the rpm package if it had also been supplied with all 
the needed modifications to the current documentation, so a newbie 
could just follow along with a document (using rpms or not) and not 
have to make any big leaps into unknown territory.


> Especially multimedia applications like mythtv and mplayer are 
> targeted (also)
> for average users, that should not have to be software gurus or be 
> able to
> follow a rather technical setup and possibly deal with problems that 
> are not
> covered.
Mythtv may be appealing to non-gurus, but it is still a pretty tough 
install. Being appealing to a certain type, does not make it 
_appropriate_ for that same type. That said, that is why mythtv has 
some of the most complete documentation I've seen in a linux based 
project. Someone with the right hardware and a few red hat disks could 
follow along with the documentation, and as long as they read 
carefully, they would never lose their way, never have to strike into 
unknown territory, and not have to know too much.


> rpms/dpkgs do raise the acceptance and usage of any software bit.
>
That might become desirable with the 1.0 release, you would have to ask 
isaac.




>
> Don't drive people away from the packaging concept. Try instead to be
> constructive. If you do find true shortcomings in the packages you 
> should
> suggest improvements.

OK, here is a shortcoming: they don't come with comprehensive 
documentation.


>> Does your rpm set the LANG variable to "us"?
> No, you know it should not (although it could)!
maybe it should ask whether to change it for the system or for just the 
current user.  There is another constructive suggestion.


>> Or know that sometimes you have to run ldconfig multiple times?
>
> Yes, again ...
>
really? It can? I'm impressed.


>> Or that sometimes you do need to recompile the kernel to get lirc 
>> running
>> and sometimes you don't.
>
> You must be kidding.

kinda : )



> Your denial against packaging software is remarkable. Next thing you 
> will
> suggest is reformating our hard disks and go Linux From Scratch.

I was funny to see you get more and more worked up as you went along.


> If you feel like the rpms needing improvement your comments are 
> welcome. I
> am really not fond of flaming, ranting and politics.
easy big fella.



Here is the bottom line. If you (or anyone) submit documentation to go 
along with the rpms that is as good and complete as the current 
documentation, and the rpms can be verified as high quality, and Isaac 
and Robert approve, then I would welcome rpms. If they proved easier 
than the regular install process I would support getting rid of the 
configure, make, make install method.



cheers,


cedar