On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Mark Bainter wrote:
> I have to thank you. It gave me a much needed laugh.
Well, I'm glad.:-) I actually thought both mails were a bit funny and over
the top, but at the time I read it I was very annoyed by you.
Recall there are 3 things: what is said, what it meant, and what is
understood. I think the trigotomy was imbalanced, so let's set it
straight.
> Agreed. You obviously had more of a clue than Zantara did. After reading
> your response I get the impression you read the whole message and took it as
> if it was all directed at you. That's a shame.
Uhm, I can't speak for Zen, he has a clue, but I don't know how fully he
investigated RPM ( Which is a good tool.)
> No, I don't know you. All I know is what I observe through the comments you
> make, and yes, I have to make my evaluations based on that. Same as you. If
> you read your message again, you'll note you did the exact same thing with me.
> If you already know that, that's great. But you didn't reflect that in your
> message. While I can't state it as fact, I'm guessing there are a lot of
> people who read this message of your who /don't/ know that. So what did they
> do, they believed what you said. Some may have checked it out, but only a
> select few. Most will have assumed what you stated to be absolutely true. I
> corrected that. Personally, I think you are being a bit too defensive.
Uhm, in the original mail I never actually ripped RPM, I don't think. I
said I like building from sources. My original post was in no way a slur
on RPM, which I regard as quite handy. In fact, one of the main reasons I
stopped using Slakware, was because they don't have a decent software
database management system, which is basically what RPM is.
> > > > How is this different from a precompiled binary?
> >
> > There IS no difference between it and a precompiled binary. That's the
> > whole f*cking POINT. READ MAIL BEFORE YOU SPOUT THIS STUPIDITY.
>
> Which is my point. It was a rehtorical question. Your statements reflected a
> disdain for RPM in general. I will admit to an assumption here, that you were
> no different than the throngs of others I have argued about RPM with, being
> that you think RPM is horrible/etc and tgz packages are the answer to
> everything.
No. If I really hated RPM and thought it was horrible, I wouldn't use
S.u.S.E. which is RPM based. I think your mistake was jumping into a
middle of a thread without really knowing what the thread was about. We
already know the STRENGTHS of RPM. Some guy said to build with sources was
nuts or whatever, and I simply replied in my post that it's NOT nuts, and
it can be quite pleasant. RPM is a nice tool, but it does has faults and
there are certain annoyances that occur when using it in a dist. Does this
mean RPM sucks? No. Did I say that? No. What I said that was that RPMS
aren't perfect and that they have issues:
You are stuck with defaults by people who may not install it the way you'd
like or even they way you think a system should be set up.
There's no debugging available even when the packagers know damn well they
are dealing with beta apps, like KDE, Gnome, and Enlightenment (old). etc.
S.u.S.E. does this too. I think beta apps should have debugging in by
default.
My point was to merely address the thread. RPM is nice. It's just not
ideal. Does that mean it sucks? No.
> > anyone with a brain. The whole point of RPM was to make life easier and
> > sometimes it does. The reality of it is, RPM is just a way of automating
> > stuff you'd have to know anyway if you were building a source package.
> > RPMS let the clueless get away with being clueless. Sources don't.
>
> Agreed to a point.
RPM is aimed at making Linux easier to deal with. That's a strength. I
think the way it is used in most dists, if not ALL of them, is in many
ways leaving much to be desired.This is particularly true of Red Hat. I
think splitting up things into 3 or 4 different packages is an annoyance,
but I appreciate the logical reasons why they do it. This doesn't work for
me, though, or anyone who's used to compiling apps. This design (leaving
out includes, putting in unneccesary documentation that noone ever reads
etc , I don't mean manpages, I mean Changelogs, and stuff like that,) is
primarily because the packagers ASSUME that cause people are using RPM and
the dist is managed by the dist itself, that they can leave out headers
and some libs, and have two or 3 different packages. This is fine for
newbies, or people with space issues, or who just want runtime stuff, but
for everyone else it's an iritation.
> Wow, I've never met anyone whose never made a mistake before. Even in a small
> area like unix system adminstration, that is impressive.
No, I make mistakes, what I'm saying is that when building apps, I always
check the dependencies, and requirements, and check out how it'll impact
my system. I didn't say I 'never made a mistake'. I do make mistakes, some
of them can be quite silly, but I don't mess up the big stuff, that can
have toxic impact on my computers.To clarify: I have never broken my
system in compiling from
sources and 99% of the time, I build without any negative repercussions
cause I know what the hell I'm doing.
> assure you this is not the case. I don't use RPM to protect me from
> 'incompetence'. If I use it to protect me from anything it's laziness. This
> goes back to your earlier comment. Because of something you read into one
> comment you think you know /me/ and think I'm 'clueless'. If I only had one
> linux box to worry about perhaps I would be less of a fan of RPM. But the
> fact that I administrate many different linux boxes requires a lot more work
> to journal each. And as I noted, I'm lazy. RPM makes this easier.
Laziness is a virtue on Unices, I think. Point taken. Personally, I admire
laziness and applaud you for it.
> > I'm not saying it is TOTALLY different from RPM. Installing from sources
> > is only a problem, if the installer, ( people like yourself) are worried (
> > seems with good cause in your case ) that they really don't know what the
> > hell they are doing. I can check what something installs and yes I can
>
> Again, an assumption on your part. At least mine were founded in something.
Not really. You can't jump into the middle of a thread and start babbling
and claim you know what you were talking about. Yours were founded on
nothing whatsoever. To me it was just a misguided flame.
> You should try harder next time. That point wasn't there. The only thing
> that come out of the mail you sent was 'I don't like RPM' and your reasonings
> were weak.
My reasons weren't weak. And if you reread my mail nowhere does it say "I
don't like RPM". You read BETWEEN the lines, when you should just read
what is said. I wasn't arguing against RPM, so much as pointing out a few
annoyances among others that are valid issues, and saying "RPM is not
perfect. Sources are kewl, too." To me the fact that you are at the mercy
of the builder is not 'weak' at all, but valid. I like to control my
system, and I get occasionally fed up with ALL the dists, and their love
of treating the user like an idiot, and using alot of 'system
overmanagement' disguised as system management. Hell, one of the first
things I do when I install S.u.S.E. or RedHat is turn off all that crap.
How does it relate to RPM? It is part of this new mentality, that effects
the way the dist is built. Pretty annoying. Despite Flakware's (sic)
flaws, one thing I did like was it didn't get overambitious and had a
habit of minding it's own business, and not bloating my disk with lame
config tools that barely work, and tampering with system sensitive files
that I hand-modify myself like sendmail.
It's the only thing that came out to YOU. I reread that mail. I didn't say
'I don't like RPM'. I said I like to build from sources and mentioned a
few OBVIOUS failings of RPM as it is used by many dists. I don't think
pointing out 'RPM is not perfect' to someone who implied source builds
were wacky, is the same as saying RPM sucks. If you take what I said in
context it's not weak, but , of course, you didn't. YOu just jumped in
with no clue as to context and then blahblahblah.
> > handy. But yes, I still like ---for SOME THINGS--- to work with sources,
> > because I find RPM gets tedious ( and this isn't cause I 'don't know' how
> > to use RPM, I do, I just prefer even in knowing how to use it to
> > sometimes opt to NOT use it). I think for someone with the
>
> I can understand that. On occaision I don't bother either. Sometimes it's
> just too big of a pain to create the rpm.
>
>
> Not a single thing I said in that message relative to linux and RPM was false.
> There was not a single place in your mail message that you stated such. The
> only thing you took issue with was the fact that I approached my response from
> what you felt to be the wrong angle. And that only happened because of your
> failure to make your point.
So it seems to you. I DID make my point, but you just butted in without
seeing what was really being discussed, RPM and targz. It wasn't ever
really a 'Gee, RPM sucks' thread in the first place. That's what I meant
when I said you don't get it. I think RPM is great. I wouldn't use a dist
without it or something similar. But once the system is UP, RPM can be a
either a boon or a pain in the ass, and I still maintain that is true,
having worked with both methods. This is true even if you know what you
are doing. What I took exception to, was your implying that if one has any
problem whatsoever with RPM and how dists use it, it most be because they
haven't studied it and thus happen to be clueless, and that's plain
untrue. I was also iritated about being told what rpm -qpl or rpm -qipl
is. To me that's a damn insult. It implies a cluelessness.I don't need
someone to tell me something as prosaic, banal, and
basic, as a this simple convenient command line option, which one can
easily see in 2 seconds just by typing rpm | more or man rpm.
> First, when I read your message I got a generally feeling of anti-rpm. When I
You misunderstood my mail, then. Why the heck would I use an RPM based
dist if I was anti-RPM? Is it good? Sure. Is it as good as it could/should
be? Hell, no and not even close. But I do like it.
> encounter that on a list like this, I do my best to respond. Not out of a
> desire to convert you to using rpm, but out of a desire to correct it for the
> benefit of others reading the list. I didn't do it because I was trying to
I appreciate that. It's just you missed the boat in this case. I see your
intentions were admirable and I respect that.
> educate you. If you didn't know (based on what I read) I figured it was
> because you hadn't bothered to find out. Not because you couldn't know. In
> rereading my message again, I don't see how you could be so offended by my
> message in response to what you wrote.
Because it was the first thing I read this morning and I didn't like the
tone. ( Especially that rpm -qpl comment. Implying that I didn't
know what that is and does is a bit insulting.)As it is most of your
post didn't apply to me.
> Your message didn't come accross saying 'I think RPM is a good idea, but I
> don't use it all the time because....'. It said RPM is A_BAD_THING(tm). If
Not to you. But that's what I meant. It was PART OF A THREAD. So you have
to take what I said in the context in which it occured.Now if I knew
people were lurking just to pick me apart, I WOULD have said that, but I
give the reader too much credit, I guess.
> you want to call yourself a stud and think you are better than some other
> linux users because they use RPM help yourself.
That's funny. I don't think I'm better. I do think RPM like alot of stuff
happening now, benefits, mostly but not entirely the clueless Linux user,
who doesn't want to know how things work. It's still a powerful tool, but
most Linux users of reasonable ability could function without it. How hard
would it be to just right a script that monitors and tracks all source
builds? Not hard at all.
> However, it just makes my analogy about X that much better. You see, that's
> what command line fanatics think too. They love to pretend they are better
> than people who use X just because they only use command line apps. They
> aren't. They are just different. Same with people who choose not to use RPM
> and those who do. Linux users are a diverse group. We use
> what works for us and I don't like to see people beating down an idea just
> because they don't like it. If you don't like RPM fine. If you would like it
> more if it were different somehow, contribute.
Yes, you see this all the time. These are the same ones that stick to
Slakware despite the transparency of it's failing in some areas. It's a
shame that people feel better than others because of 'old school' thinking
but hey, Unix and Linux are a snob's arena. Face it. Get over it. It ain't
changing. It's part of the computer culture. It's the same thing where we
rip Doze. It's good for laughs, nothing more.
We all have our projects. RPM isn't on my list of goals. Not at this time.
I take it as it comes, and then bend around it to suit my needs. :-)
That doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade when I see something I
don't like.
>And what it really
> boiled down to was convienance. You find it less convenient to use RPM
> because you have to build your own anyway, so you might as well just build it
> from src and track the install. Great. That's fine. Say that. You said in
I DO and DID say that. My response was to Scott, who made
what Ifelt were some negative and misguided ( not to mention poorly thought out
and misinformed ) comments about people building from source. If you take
it in that context, I was clearly just saying " RPMS aren't perfect
either, and sources have their benefits, namely customizability." There is
nothing in my post that said RPM sucks. Did I mention a few minuses about
RPM? Sure, because it explains that using RPM isn't guaranteed to be pain
free either ( despite what some people would have you believe ) and that
sources are 'do-able' etc.
> true. People know that and will give more credence to what you say as fact
> rather than opinion. This creates a group of people who don't like RPM but
> don't really know why. This is what I try to prevent. You like RPM, but not
> for everything. Fine, that's great. Because you have an informed opinion.
> That's what I was trying to give others reading this thread. An informed
> opinion.
You give me too much credit. And give the other members of the list too
little. If I tell someone to jump off a bridge they won't neccesarily do
it.
So let me say what I should have said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RPM is a cool tool. It works, but is not perfect yet. I think it's a good
starting point for a core database management system. However, that being
said, many packages are packaged in a way that doesn't allow
customizability and this has its drawbacks. Also the builder's
understanding and philosophy of what the deps are and what should be
configured in and left out is often not in sync with how I wish myapps
to be built and installed.This doesn't mean RPM
sucks. It does not. Still, if there are certain projects, I find it more
convenient, and JUST AS EFFICIENT, to work with source apps. This is
particularly true with CVS and developmental software where I may
recompile tons of MEGS of code, several times in a short period of time.
For stuff like this, where the updates are frequent and there is
infectuous turn-around for reasons of personal convenience I will
sometimes go with sources instead of rolling RPMS.
Is that clear enough?????????????????????
Have lots of fun......
-M
-
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archiv at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
