Page 6 of 27 « First 45 6 7816 Last »
Poll: What is your opinion about the migration to Moblin/RPM
Poll Options
What is your opinion about the migration to Moblin/RPM

Reply
Thread Tools
ewan's Avatar
ewan is offline ewan
2010-02-15 , 22:18
Posts: 445 | Thanked: 572 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Oxford
#51
Originally Posted by nightfire View Post
And as someone quite experienced with both APT/dpkg and up2date/RPM (admittedly not yum), both from a user and developer's perspective, I respectfully disagree that they're equal.
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.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to ewan For This Useful Post:
nightfire is offline nightfire
2010-02-15 , 22:38
Posts: 310 | Thanked: 383 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#52
Originally Posted by ewan View Post
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.
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?
Last edited by nightfire; 2010-02-15 at 22:48.
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to nightfire For This Useful Post:
ewan's Avatar
ewan is offline ewan
2010-02-15 , 22:47
Posts: 445 | Thanked: 572 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Oxford
#53
Originally Posted by nightfire View Post
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?
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 :-)

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

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)?
Yes.

Does it allow advanced dependency overrides in the case of complex upgrades (ie. gracefully handling package cross-dependencies)?
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?
 
mlb is offline mlb
2010-02-15 , 22:52
Posts: 31 | Thanked: 5 times | Joined on Jan 2010 @ Poland
#54
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!
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mlb For This Useful Post:
fatalsaint is offline fatalsaint
2010-02-15 , 22:58
Posts: 3,428 | Thanked: 2,856 times | Joined on Jul 2008
#55
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.
__________________
If I've helped you or you use any of my packages feel free to help me out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining:
pyRadio - Pandora Radio on your N900, N810 or N800!
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to fatalsaint For This Useful Post:
nightfire is offline nightfire
2010-02-15 , 23:06
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:
geneven is offline geneven
2010-02-15 , 23:09
Posts: 5,795 | Thanked: 3,151 times | Joined on Feb 2007 @ Agoura Hills Calif
#57
Since they are so similar and the differences are so trivial, wouldn't it be an easy matter to support both?
 
nightfire is offline nightfire
2010-02-15 , 23:14
Posts: 310 | Thanked: 383 times | Joined on Jan 2010
#58
The capabilities may be similar, but the differences are far from trivial.
 
range is offline range
2010-02-15 , 23:24
Posts: 337 | Thanked: 160 times | Joined on Aug 2009 @ München, DE
#59
Originally Posted by fatalsaint View Post
Y] Deb based systems are more similar to each other not just in the package management but also in actual system stucture.
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.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to range For This Useful Post:
range is offline range
2010-02-15 , 23:31
Posts: 337 | Thanked: 160 times | Joined on Aug 2009 @ München, DE
#60
Originally Posted by fatalsaint View Post
But again, the LSB and *structure* of the OS's that use rpm are lacking severely.
How comes that RHEL is LSB compliant then, if it severly lacks LSB?
 
Reply
Page 6 of 27 « First 45 6 7816 Last »

Tags
rabble-rousing, rpm vs. deb war, rpmligion vs debligion, vote attila77

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:51.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top