Well, I read this thread (actually only part of it because people tend to
repeat themselves) and I am quite amazed about some of the unfounded rumours
about .RPM- and .DEB-package formats.
*Both* check for dependencies. DEBs are NOT TGZs with scripts attached
(that's SLP, used by Stampede Linux).
The main "usability features" of APT are:
1. It manages multiple sources for packages, eg. you could have a CD-ROM,
multiple FTP-sites (stable packages, unstable packages, security updates,
...) and some files on your harddisk. All those packages would be in a
central database which also includes dependency-information. The tool simply
downloads a tgz-file from the FTP-server and merges it into the local
database. This is (AFAIK) also possible with kpackage (not sure if it works
with remote packages, though).
2. When trying to upgrade a package it will also try to update all other
packages which depend on it (in your Gimp 2.0 example most of Gnome would
propably be suggested for an update too).
3. When you try to install/uninstall a package other packages depend upon
(which cannot be fixed) you are warned (same as in RPM). There are also
"recommended" packages as well as packages which exclude each other. (same
as in RPM?)
4. You can run "unattended" upgrades (i.e. without having to check each
package for an upgrade) simply from the command-line. This would check for
"stable" updates to installed packages, which don't result in any
dependency-problems and install them. This even works when updating the
whole distribution.
5. dpkg itself (which is the equivalent to the "rpm"-command-line-tool) has
several sets of "force"-switches, one of them ignoring dependencies, which
is NOT the default! dpkg is not really that much better than rpm, it's
mainly apt which is the "more powerful" feature.
That is propably all that really matters (to the user) in the ways of
choosing a "right" package-format. Also keep in mind that RPM is currently
being / has recently been refreshed...
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Meurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 1:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Cooker] RPM(S) worst enemy but Mandrake's best friend...
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Bryan Paxton wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Frank Meurer wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Bryan Paxton wrote:
[...]
> > > Also, how do we stop all the --forces ? I know from my brief
experience with
> > > debian I _never_ had to force a package to install. The question is,
is this
> > > a result of bad maintaining of the .spec files ? Or is this simply
RPM's ugly
> > > side ? Remember, too many --forces can corrupt a DB and turn-off a
user from
> > > even wanting to mess with said package.
> > Er... in this case above "--force" won't work IMHO!
> >
>
> hrmmm ? what won't work ?
IMHO "--force" won't work but "--nodeps" will work.
I don't know because I don't use "--force"! :-))
[...]
> *nod* but why not jump in ahead to offer something appealing and easy to
manage
> for the sys admin ?
Ahh! That's the point!
You say: deb is easy to use (or easy to manage).
Jose says: rpm is easy because it protects user from doing wrong.
I say: Now we should define "easy"... :-)
[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do programmers always get Christmas and Halloween mixed up?
Because DEC 25 = OCT 31
Sending unsolicited commercial email to this address may be a violation
of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW.
Das Verschicken unverlangter kommerzieller email an diese Adresse ist
verboten (LG Traunstein, 2 HK O 3755/97 vom 14.10.1997, CR 1998, 171f).
(Frank Meurer, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PGP ID: 0x5E756DA8)
