RPM Rant (was: Re: Evolution on RedHat 7.2)
Robert A. Klahn
plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:08:31 -0700
We seem to have, almost, returned to my original point when I started this sub-thread.
"dependency-hell" is a problem that A) Clearly exists in RedHat, up to and including 7.2, and B) Seems to have been solved in Debian. *I* happen to believe that the package format greatly contributes to the problem, others reasonably disagree with that, or at least see ways to solve the problem with the current, or slightly modified, RPM package format. There are other factors. For one, I agree with the points that others have made that the package building discipline around Debian contributes to solving the problem.
I too, hope that this thread does not digress into a Distribution flame fest. Truly, despite the fact that I came close to trolling at one point. I was just having a little fun. :)
Again, my original point was: Both distributions good, both distributions can learn from each other. But the larger point, which I guess I really did not make before this is: Its good to have multiple distributions. That way, they at least have the opportunity to learn from each other.
Bob.
On 25 Jan 2002 11:25:02 -0700
Blake Barnett <blake.barnett@developonline.com> wrote:
> This thread was about the pains of installing software without
> dependancy checking. Not RedHat vs. Debian, I know the virtues of
> Debian, I have evangelized them myself at times. What it comes down to,
> is that both have their problems, but dependancy-hell should not be one
> of them at this stage in the game.
>
> Red-Carpet is not enough, <insert APT equivalent here> needs to be
> integrated with the RedHat base system.
>
> The LSB states that all conforming distributions must provide a
> mechanism for installing RPM, not DEB.
>
> RedHat is on the page for LSB contributors.
>
> Anyway, this conversation is descending, so it's probably best we end
> it. Unless anyone REALLY wants to get into the Distro Flame-wars again.
>
>
> On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 10:57, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> >
> > > DEB is not better than RPM. RPM is slightly better if you do a
> > > comparison of features. DEB has a couple things that would not be hard
> > > to put into RPM. All RedHat needs to do is integrate APT, or something
> > > equivalent to it in their distribution and the dependancy-hell issue
> > > will go away. It's the fact that they haven't done it YET that is the
> > > problem.
> >
> > I have stayed quiet on this for too long, but want to DISPELL this myth.
> >
> > a. there is no good packaging system just those that suck less
> > ex: rpm sucks
> > deb sucks less
> > b. adding 'apt' like 'grabbing' and 'dependency' capabilities to redhat or
> > ANY distribution doesnt make it equal to debian.
> >
> > Let me elaborate on B. The power of debian isnt merely the 'dependency'
> > downloading. The REAL power is the maintainership system and the theory
> > behind it.
> >
> > Their 'unstable' is more stable than some vendors shipping products.
> > Their testing is the same. Without complex check and balance and
> > volunteer system to 'maintain' this debian would be no different than red
> > carpet or similar services.
> >
> > I.E. Red Carpet is ok for getting new packages and having it resolve some
> > dependencies, but it breaks stuff a LOT or restricts heavily what you can
> > or can not download, basically it pales in comparision to the debian
> > system as a 'whole'.
> >
> > > IMHO, Connectiva has done the right thing in porting APT to RPM, maybe
> > > RedHat will use their work. I would like to see it. In fact, I would
> > > like to see Debian switch to RPM just for consistency. They would need
> > > to port over some of the features of dpkg to RPM, and possibly even have
> > > their own version of RPM (like Mandrake...). But at least it would end
> > > this stupid holy-war over packaging, which should have been over years
> > > ago. With the LSB, maybe... maybe it will happen, wishful thinking
> > > still though.
> >
> > If you are 'high' on LSB then you should ask red hat to switch to .deb.
> > As debian lead (at that time) Bruce Perens started the LSB and one of the
> > few distributions dragging its feet for compliance (last i checked) was
> > Red Hat.
> >
> > That said, Red Hat is a nice distribution and great for users
> > wanting/needing a system that has a shorter learning curve. So this is
> > not meant is Debian is the bomb, Red Hat sucks email. It is just meant as
> > porting apt to red hat isnt enough, red hat would have to make the same
> > efforts to keep things 'up to date' that the VERY large volunteer system
> > of Debian does.
> >
> > -Derek
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> >
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> --
> Blake Barnett (bdb) <blake.barnett@developonline.com>
> Sr. Unix Administrator
> DevelopOnline.com office: 480-377-6816
>
> Learning is a skill, you get better at it with practice.
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
--
Robert A. Klahn
rklahn@acm.org
AIM: rklahn
Yahoo Messenger: klahn
IRC: rklahn@irc.openprojects.net
"Hope has two beautiful daughters: Anger and Courage. Anger at the way
things are, and Courage to struggle to create things as they should be." -
St. Augustine