Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!
 

OK; if you haven't used yum you clearly haven't used a Redhat/Fedora type system in quite a few years. I've used, and continue to use, both and really there is very little substantial difference between RPM and deb formats, between the RPM and dpkg tools, and between the yum and apt repository/dependency handlers. There are little advantages and disadvantages to each, but nothing dramatic.

If you've got specific questions or concerns, what are they? I'm pretty sure those of us with more recent experience of RPM systems will be able to answer them.

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!
 

You're right.. most of the systems I admin are using RHEL4.

Ok, does the modern RPM install/removal process allow for interactivity? IE. can a package install query the user? I understand the original philosophy was to permit unattended installation, but is interactivity now possible?

If interactivity is supported, are multiple verbosity levels? Nokia could set the package verbosity to LOW from the factory, but later allow it to be changed by the user; this would allow packages to use varying levels of defaults. It would be great if a GPS navigator asked "prefer offline mode?" from the factory, but could ask questions about assisted GPS daemons, map locations, etc. for users with their verbosity set to high.

Does it handle alternatives? If you install two packages which both offer the same binary, does the system handle which one is active through symbolic linking?

Can multiple packages provide the same facility? Can other packages depend on that facility (ie. multiple JVMs offer "java" and one is enough to satisfy the dependency)?

Does it allow advanced dependency overrides in the case of complex upgrades (ie. gracefully handling package cross-dependencies)?

APT's dist-upgrade is famous for being extremely robust and reliable between major Debian releases (though mostly due to the efforts of maintainers). Does Fedora's yum distribution upgrade work well?

Does yum/RPM support package triggers?

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!
 

No. I don't tend to find it a problem in practice, things are just packaged to expect configuration after installation if needed rather than as part of the install itself. And it allows automated installs without risking having it stop because you missed a debconf question in the configuration. That's probably of limited relevance on a Maemo type system though; I can't see much of a use-case for kickstarting an N900 :-)

Yes. With a direct port of Debian's alternatives system.

Yes.

Complex upgrades tend to work; I've done several Fedora major upgrades with yum. It's not strictly something Fedora support, but people generally try to make sure it works, and it usually does. I'm not sure exactly what you're thinking of when you say 'overrides' exactly though - if the dependency information is good and expresses the real dependency relationships between packages surely you want to use that information, not override it?

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!
 

debian is proven to be flexible and robust, immune to version conflicts and easy to handle. Fedora, still based on RPM is a pain. Several years ago it was main reason why I abandoned Redhat/Fedora and joined Ubuntu users community. Much easier to work with!

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!
 

A lot of the versioning conflict and problems that rpm used to have aren't as bad anymore, and honestly, if someone ports the Smart Package Manager over then its all moot. It tends to b e smarter at package resolution than even aptitude. At least in my experience. Honestly the direct RPM VS DEB is mostly moot as they are both mature packaging systems.

But again, the LSB and *structure* of the OS's that use rpm are lacking severely. /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 over /etc/network/interfaces for example. These are the changes I don't like.

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!
 

Ok, I guess this is truly a preference thing and not better/worse. I think interactivity makes upgrades more reliable, but I guess there is an advantage in ensuring sane defaults are present on a device (due to necessity).

Ok, interesting. :)

Ok I've spent about 10 minutes trying to come up with an example. :p It happens mainly during large upgrades when package A depends on B or C, but C conflicts with B, and depends on A. Can't uninstall B without breaking A, and can't install C without A. So you can override and say "uninstall B, then install C" even though the dependency chain is temporarily broken.

Ok, maybe an equivalently good system could be built atop of Fedora/Yum/RPM, but I still don't see the point. :(

And I still think Debian's package naming, filesystem & config layout and base system are better.

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!
 

Since they are so similar and the differences are so trivial, wouldn't it be an easy matter to support both?

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!
 

The capabilities may be similar, but the differences are far from trivial.

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!
 

That might be because there only is *one* deb based system. And Ubuntu is quite a copy of that.

While the rpm based systems *always* have been different from each other (SuSE and Red Hat for example have never been similiar), but just use the same package manager.

Re: Fedora based MeeGo = NoGo!
 

How comes that RHEL is LSB compliant then, if it severly lacks LSB?