[geeks] Alpha check

[Gregory Leblanc]

On 18 May 2001 09:15:58 +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 04:27:55PM -0700, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> 
> > David Cantrell wrote:
> >
> > > [Debian's package management being so much more comprehensive than
> > >  Redhat's]
> >
> > Erm, no, it's not "so much more comprehensive" than Red Hat's, from
> > everything that I've been able to figure out.  I know the
> > user/administrator side of RPM inside and out.  I'm getting into dpkg,
> > but it has some rather large gaps in functionality.
> 
> I'd like to know what you think is missing.  It supports all the

The biggest thing that it doesn't have is the ability to install
multiple versions of the same package.  I've heard the arguments both
ways, and I want to have multiple versions of the same package
installed.  I know I had found a few other things that it just didn't do
right, but I forget what they are.  I'm sure I remember again when I
start packaging GNOME for debian.

[snip]
> work).  It does, of course, support signing of packages.  Coming out-of-
> the-box with *working* support for fetching packages and all their
> dependencies from the network is a god-send.
> 
> But I really meant by 'more comprehensive' that even the kernel and any
> loadable modules are kept in the package management system, and have
> dependency information.  If you want to use a custom kernel without
> having to fart around with building packages for it, then you are
> running the risk of the package manager stomping all over it, just like
> if you compile something and put it in /usr/bin yourself.

I'm not sure I follow...  I use rpm to manage my kernel, and it allows
me to have kernel 2.2.19 and 2.2.16 installed at the same time, for
-safe- upgrades.  I think somebody said that debian named the kernel
packages to include the version number, but IMHO, that's a hack, and not
a real solution.  

> >                                                      From chatting with
> > the people I know who hack frontends for both RPM and dpkg, dpkg seems
> > to have the right concepts, but they completely fubar the
> > implementation.
> 
> I'll agree that dpkg has an ugly interface, but then rpm's isn't exactly
> stellar.  I think they're both shit.  Oh, and I avoid that ghastly
> monstrosity that is dselect altogether.  But there is no rpm equivalent of
> it so that's a non-issue.
> 
> >                  RPM, on the other hand, doesn't have the concepts quite
> > right, but their implementation is far superior.
> > Got any specifics as to what you think dpkg/apt can do better than
> > rpm/up2date ?
> 
> Sure.  apt works, up2date doesn't (it has *always* coredumped on me).

Really?  The only problems that I've ever had were with the original
up2date that shipped on RH 7.0, but I just grabbed the newer version by
hand, and it's worked fine since then.  Maybe I'm biased for hanging out
with the rhad guys.  :)  Later,
    Greg

-- 
Troll, troll, troll your post
Gently down the feed
Merrily, merrily troll along
A life is what you need...