View Single Post
Posts: 310 | Thanked: 383 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#56
Originally Posted by ewan View Post
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 :-)
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).

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

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?
Ok I've spent about 10 minutes trying to come up with an example. 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.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to nightfire For This Useful Post: