> I user to always look for packages (Slackware *.tgz) for the software that I
> wanted, but I found that they often didn't work as expected--since then I hav
> e
> installed as much as possible from source (and had a lot fewer problems).
>
> I think that is a good enough argument for the use of sources until somebody
> comes
> up with a universal (truly compatible & open-source, not like RPM & *.deb--wh
> ich
> claim to be open source, but aren't compatible with other file-tree setups, a
> nd
> refuse to be). So long as package systems only work for one type of system,
> they
> are not of any great worth to the unix community in general, or worth much to
> the
> evolution of better software in general.
>
Open source and compatibility are different issues. You get the source code for
qhicevery you want, you can redistrubute it, change it, break it as youy like.
However, since they have different capabilities, it's silly to expect them to use the
same file structures, and since RPM's capabilities are often extended, i would be a
nightmare for the Deban project to keep up. Heck, old versions of rpm can't use the
newer file formats used by newer versions of RPM either.
RPM dies a very nice job of removing all a package's files whereever they are.
It's no trouble to create an rpm that allows the user to specify where components go
at install time. When the package is upgraded or remvoed, these files' locations are
stored in the database in the locations they were installed, not where a tarball might
have said they are.
And it's also possible to check whether components of a package have been altered.
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://www2.ami.com.au/ for OS/2 & linux information.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites index.
Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/
Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition.
