Difference between RPM and binary?

[mattg2k4]

My computer teacher is putting together a CD for the programming classes that will have the install files for the student versions of all of the IDE's we'll be using, and it'll have example code and resources. He's trying to include files for linux users as well. He found both a binary and an RPM for linux, but neither of us know what the differnce is. What is the difference between the two? Can we leave just one on, and if so, which would be best?

edit: on the same note, can spaces and symbols like dashes be included in the directory paths on the cd?

[OOPS!]

Hi,

Binaries are pre-compiled software. RPM is a package management and compresstion format. RPM stands for (R)edhat (P)ackage (M)anager. Now, RPMS can be either binary or source depending on who is doing the packaging. RPMs that are source are identified by the extention .src.rpm. A pre-compiled binary is identified by the extention .x86.rpm.

Which one is best? It depends. RPMs are great for RedHat based systems. But not all distros' are rpm based. The most universal format is .tar or .tar.gz.
All systems can handle that because it is just a comprestion format. Tarballs as they are commonly called, can also be binary or source. Though most tarballs are source.

If everybody is using a RedHat based distro, use the RPM. But if some are using Debian, Slack, or Gentoo or other non RPM distro. Use the tar format.

About your second question, I think you would be ok to do that, but I wouldn't recommend it.

HTH,
OOPS!

[LocoCoyote]

If it was me, I would download source or the compressed .tat.gz files. This will ensure a wider range of compatability with many differnt distros.

[mattg2k4]

Thanks for the info guys. We haven't tested it yet, but probably the only distro of linux that would be used is redhat, so we don't really need wide ranging compatability.