On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > This is one of the things where RPM seems to fall short. I can "install" a
> > > source package, as SRPM, but it doesn't seem to get into the RPM data
> > > base.
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > This is one of the things where RPM seems to fall short. I can "install" a
> > source package, as SRPM, but it doesn't seem to get into the RPM data
> > base.
> > I can't uninstall it, query it, or use any of the manag
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Derek D. Martin wrote:
> I have to agree with Ben here actually. Using a software package
> manager to manage source code just seems awfully silly to me. I'm
> inclined to think the only reason those features exist is for RedHat
> to automate rebuilding a package to make it
-Original Message-
From: Paul Lussier [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 5:43 PM
To: Benjamin Scott
Cc: Greater NH Linux Users' Group
Subject:Re: Managing source packages (was: Debian com
That frood Paul Lussier sassed:
> In a message dated: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:28:42 EST
> Benjamin Scott said:
>
> I disagree with all these design decisions:
[complaints about RPM handling source RPMs SNIPped]
I have to agree with Ben here actually. Using a software package
manager to manage sour
That frood Benjamin Scott sassed:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Paul Lussier wrote:
> > Why would I want to NFS mount my /usr partition?
>
> A cluster full of diskless workstations comes to mind...
Which is great if that's what you have, but no one buys diskless
workstations anymore. The cost savin
That frood Benjamin Scott sassed:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Derek Martin wrote:
> >> One of the things I love about Red Hat Linux over Microsoft Windows is how
> >> *easy* it is to install a new package. "rpm -i foo" and *I'M DONE*.
> >
> > On the other hand, this method isn't all that flexible.
In a message dated: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:03:05 EST
Benjamin Scott said:
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Paul Lussier wrote:
>> I disagree with all these design decisions:
>
> I did say they were not necessarily The Right Thing.
I know :)
> Interestingly, most of your objections apply on a per-user basis
In a message dated: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:54:04 EST
Benjamin Scott said:
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Paul Lussier wrote:
>> Why would I want to NFS mount my /usr partition?
>
> A cluster full of diskless workstations comes to mind...
>
> I believe the Linux File System Standard actually specifies that
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Paul Lussier wrote:
> I disagree with all these design decisions:
I did say they were not necessarily The Right Thing.
> Maybe I want to know what version of the source package I have *quickly*
> without cd'ing down some who know's where looking for the version number.
>
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Paul Lussier wrote:
> Why would I want to NFS mount my /usr partition?
A cluster full of diskless workstations comes to mind...
I believe the Linux File System Standard actually specifies that /usr should
be mountable read-only to support just this sort of operation.
>
In a message dated: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:38:30 EST
Benjamin Scott said:
>On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Derek Martin wrote:
>>> One of the things I love about Red Hat Linux over Microsoft Windows is how
>>> *easy* it is to install a new package. "rpm -i foo" and *I'M DONE*.
>>
>> On the other hand, this m
In a message dated: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:28:42 EST
Benjamin Scott said:
I disagree with all these design decisions:
> Query? You've got the spec file, which you are presumably interested in,
>since you're mucking around with the sources. What are you going to query?
Maybe I want to know what
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Derek Martin wrote:
>> One of the things I love about Red Hat Linux over Microsoft Windows is how
>> *easy* it is to install a new package. "rpm -i foo" and *I'M DONE*.
>
> On the other hand, this method isn't all that flexible. If you're
> installing something to be shared
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> That's one of the really nice things about RPM. You can grab the SRPM and
>> unpack it in one easy motion. You can then examine the spec file to see
>> what ...
>
> This is one of the things where RPM seems to fall short. I can "install" a
> sourc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> That's one of the really nice things about RPM. You can grab the SRPM and
> unpack it in one easy motion. You can then examine the spec file to see
> what
>
This is one of the things where RPM seems to fall short.
I can "install" a source package, as SRPM, but i
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> I want my packages to be inanimate objects. I want to be able to run the
> install operation with the confidence that is is going to be safe, secure, and
> nearly always successful. Configuration is a wholly separate process, and not
> one that belo
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
> I was disappointed to find a few things missing from the dpkg tools, or
> more properly, from the philosophy:
See! I'm not the only right-thinking person around here... ;-)
> [Debian] Packages seem to be FAR too dependent on pre/post
> install/uninst
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Paul Lussier wrote:
> With the exception of a proprietary package in binary form only, why not just
> use the source?
For all of the reasons you use package management tools in the first place:
- Build once, install many (BOIM?)
- Database of packages and the files the
In a message dated: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 16:58:27 EST
Paul Iadonisi said:
> o I also like a single 'source package' file so all I need to do is move
>a single file to, for example, another hardware platform (netwinder
>anyone?) and type 'rpm --rebuild ' and voila! -- provided
>there ar
I'm not going to correct every gramatical error, but I figured I should at
least fix this one:
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 04:58:27PM -0500, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
[snip]
> true and that the apt tools for rpm are as functional as the apt tools for
> dpkg, can anyone argue that the pairing of apt a
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 10:59:59AM -0500, elawson wrote:
[snip]
> While many things seem to be around in rpm format, the completeness of the
> deb packages is amazing. If you need a package, it is there and you do not
> need to worry about missing a lib. For me, it is far better than RPM.
[sn
I do not claim to be a technically knowledgeable person, but I did manage to
install
Slackware back in 96 or so, have used RH since 4.0, have installed Corel,
Caldera, SUSE, and even TurboLinux at one time or another. After a
temporary bad experience with RH7 and wanting to put together a machine
23 matches
Mail list logo
