[BBLISA] OS libraries vs. pip/gem/cpan/etc.?

[Ryan Pugatch]

We have decided to package any dependencies we need that are not
included with the OS's repos (or if we need different versions.)  Since
we are a RHEL shop, we package them in RPMs and store them in our own
repo.  We build the RPMs using jobs in jenkins, so it's easy to go back
and rebuild them or to move to a newer version.



We actually handle our internally developed software releases this way
as well.



Ryan





On Fri, Jun 13, 2014, at 08:49 AM, John Miller wrote:

Hi folks,

In the past, I've always defaulted to using whatever programming
libraries that came packaged with my OS -- Debian, Ubuntu, Red Hat,
etc.  If I couldn't find something I needed, I grabbed it from my
language's repositories: pip, gem, cpan, etc.  This has the advantage
of getting security updates from the OS vendor, as well as getting
libraries guaranteed to work with apache/nginx/etc.

These days, I'm not so sure this is always a great idea: you need
external packages, but run into version incompatibilites with system
packages.  You also have to keep track of which packages come from
which source.  Thus a second method would be to install as much as
possible from pip/cpan/gem/etc.

What are folks' takes on this problem?  I'm hearing about the latter
method more and more lately; would like to hear everyone's experiences.

John
--
John Miller
Systems Engineer
Brandeis University
[1]johnmill at brandeis.edu

_______________________________________________

bblisa mailing list

[2]bblisa at bblisa.org

[3]http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa

References

1. mailto:johnmill at brandeis.edu
2. mailto:bblisa at bblisa.org
3. http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.bblisa.org/pipermail/bblisa/attachments/20140613/f1d712af/attachment.html>