Rick wrote: > Yes,I think so.but our procedure depend rpm format, I think you are confusing a packaging format with your program. You program undoubtedly depends upon shared libraries and other things. But it is packaged into a distribution format. It can be packaged into many different formats.
> and I found that it can't find files it need in deb DB,I had been > tried to install it on debian, > #rpm -ivh myproduct-xxx-xx.rpm > the program will prompt: myproduct need perl >5.6, and the bash must > be installed As other people have written doing this is not a good thing. Put yourself in the other position. I have a .deb file from Debian. I want to install it on a RH system. Should I insist that you must use dpkg to install it there? That would be just as silly as insisting the reverse. A native packaging is always best. A real example might help. On Debian only one MTA (mail transport agents) can be installed at the same time. Installing a different one pushes out the previous one. This makes it easy to switch between MTAs. Just install a different one. Have sendmail installed? Install postfix. Sendmail is removed as Postfix is added leaving Postfix as the active MTA. Want to go back? Install the previous MTA of choice. Everything works. It is very nice. On later RH they use the alternatives for /usr/sbin/mta making it a symlink to the currently active MTA such as one of sendmail or postfix. It is possible to have multiple MTAs installed but only one of them active[1]. This is a completely different method of managing the current MTA. And after installation you must adjust the alternatives and other things or your desired selected MTA is not configured. On RH 7.3 (don't know about later versions) postfix has a lower priority than sendmail for example. Installing a package from a different system will not be written to handle the other system's management methods. This is completely outside the scope of just a package installation tool like dpkg or rpm or even a dependency aware tool like apt or yum but encompasses the larger problem of system policy. There are issues of naming conventions and other such things to be taken into consideration. I feel that the system policy which describes how packages interoperate is where Debian is clearly ahead of the competition. Bob [1] Why have multiple MTAs installed? Only one can really be active. It just causes problems. But this is legacy from RH usage. On RH at bare metal install time is the only time you can guarantee the dependencies are all resolvable. So RH users have been encouraged to install everything from the CD at installation time regardless of the sensibility of that because later they won't be able to do so. This required RH to facilitate this using the Debian alternatives as a way to have multiple MTAs installed at the same time but only one operating. I see that as a hack on a hack. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]