# GRC Install - Pybombs vs Binaries **URL:** \ **Category:** GNU Radio\ **Created:** [December 19, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/grc-install-pybombs-vs-binaries/233510 "2014-12-19T14:57:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![addis\_a](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@addis\_a](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/addis_a)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/grc-install-pybombs-vs-binaries/233510/1 "2014-12-19T14:57:46Z")
Hello experts, I have been using linux and GRC for about a year and as such I am still pretty ‘green’ about a lot of stuff, but I am learning and hopefuly someone will be able to advise me about me questions. I use GRC at work behind a firewall. Installing via Pybombs is very cumbersome if not impossible only due to the fact that Pybombs ‘fetches’ various dependencies, etc from various locations on the internet. The firewall is preventing access (as it is designed to) to some parts of github, etc. So the only way to use pybombs in my circumstance is to bring the computer off site for the installation to complete without errors. I have recently learned how pybombs can be used to install or revert to a specific version of GRC. The binary package which is installed with the 'apt-get install … " terminal command is allowable from behind the firewall and seems to be a good solution for me going forward. At a training course from Corgan Labs in the spring we were warned that binaries will be phased out in favour of pybombs. This leads me to a few questions: 1. Will the binaries be available and supported into the future or will pybombs eventualy be the method of choice? 2. Is there an advantage to using one method over the other? 3. Is there a way to identify a package version that is considered to be long term support compared to a minor bug fix (similar to the way that Ubuntu has identified its versions)? Best Regards, John M. ---
**Author:** ![jmaenpaa](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/9de053/32.png) [@jmaenpaa](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jmaenpaa)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/grc-install-pybombs-vs-binaries/233510/2 "2014-12-20T01:05:17Z")
On 12/19/2014 02:56 PM, John M. wrote: > […] > forward. At a training course from Corgan Labs in the spring we were > warned that binaries will be phased out in favour of pybombs. > This leads me to a few questions: > > 1. Will the binaries be available and supported into the future or will > pybombs eventualy be the method of choice? Not sure what exactly you discussed with Johnathan, but in general we recommend people to use the binaries (apt-get install), unless you need a newer version or want to particpate in development. In particular, for beginners this is a good choice because it removes at least one awkward stage of getting started. Note that you should have at least a 3.7.x version. Latest Ubuntus ship this. If this is not the case, that would be one case where we don’t recommend using binaries. > 1. Is there an advantage to using one method over the other? The obvious ones: apt-get is easier, pybombs gives you more flexibility and newest stuff. The latter also has the advantage that you have immediate access to lots of OOT modules. > 1. Is there a way to identify a package version that is considered to > be long term support compared to a minor bug fix (similar to the way > that Ubuntu has identified its versions)? We don’t really have this. You can see some releases have four-figure version numbers (e.g. 3.7.5.1) which is what happens when we add some bugfixes to a release (in this case, 3.7.5). There’s still too much change going on with GNU Radio to freeze an LTS version of it. Cheers, M ---
**Author:** ![jmaenpaa](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/9de053/32.png) [@jmaenpaa](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jmaenpaa)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/grc-install-pybombs-vs-binaries/233510/3 "2014-12-20T17:27:37Z")
On 20/12/14 00:03, Martin B. wrote: > a newer version or want to particpate in development. In particular, for > immediate access to lots of OOT modules. > Cheers, > M > > * * * > > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list > [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > [Discuss-gnuradio Info Page](https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio) If it is of any interest, Mageia 5 will be launched in late January with gnuradio-3.7.5.1 available for install using the Mageia package manager. Mageia 5 will have a two year life cycle with bug-fix only updates during that time. Cheers, Barry