Active Topics
-
The N900 is now 15 years old! (7)
to Nokia N900 by Danct12 - 1 day, 1 hr ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 1 day, 20 hrs ago -
F(x)tec Pro1x (QWERTY) for sale (0)
to Buy & Sell by aln00000 - 4 days, 5 hrs ago - more...
| The Following User Says Thank You to Mandor For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-02-15
, 21:22
|
|
Posts: 1,746 |
Thanked: 2,100 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#42
|
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
If we're issuing either of those regularly then work needs to be done on the repository back-end. Lack of things like YUM were what drove me to Gentoo (which actually resolved dependencies) before I started using Ubuntu and APT.
we'll issue rpm -Uvh instead of dpkg -i seems quite silly to me.
|
|
2010-02-15
, 21:23
|
|
Posts: 310 |
Thanked: 383 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#43
|
Originally Posted by ewan
Absolutely untrue.
It would certainly help your case if people would just stop disagreeing with it, wouldn't it. But they probably won't because you're just plain wrong. Maemo may use the deb packaging format but it is not Debian. It does not follow Debian policy. It does not use Debian packages. It does not use Debian mirrors. It is not a 'no-compromise GPL-compatible license and OSS system baseline' (though, neither is Debian).
We're talking about the packaging format. Deb and RPM are equivalent.
Maemo is a Debian derivative in the same way Ubuntu is. They are not bound by Debian policy, no.. but it is counterproductive and expensive to stray far from mainline.
Of course it will happen, but the fact is 90% of Maemo is simply Debian, plus Nokia software, patches and configuration.
It's the same way with the kernel. Very few people use Linux-proper; they use a kernel provided by their vendor. But it's still Linux. It's still 99.9% mainline, and each new version that's released is repatched, recertified, and released. The further from mainline, the more work it is for the vendor.
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.
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to nightfire For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-02-15
, 21:24
|
|
Posts: 3,428 |
Thanked: 2,856 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
|
#44
|
Originally Posted by Mandor
Because the core of Linux is freedom... the exact opposite of control.
OT -- At the risk of being shot : why Oh ! why is there not only one software package for all the distros ? (yes, I am aware of past debates).
| The Following User Says Thank You to fatalsaint For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2010-02-15
, 21:46
|
|
Posts: 963 |
Thanked: 626 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Connecticut, USA
|
#45
|
Originally Posted by nightfire
95% of Debian is simply Linux. Again, there has been a lot of FUD spread over the years about Debian's inherent superiority to every thing else. The facts are that with proper packagers/maintainers and RPM based system can be just as solid. (And yes, things have improved a lot since the old Red Hat up2date days.) There are no technical impediments to this choice. Yes, some of us will have to learn to package things a little differently, but the bulk of the work will be done by Nokia and they seem to be fine with doing it. So, relax it will be alright.
Absolutely untrue.
Maemo is a Debian derivative in the same way Ubuntu is. They are not bound by Debian policy, no.. but it is counterproductive and expensive to stray far from mainline.
Of course it will happen, but the fact is 90% of Maemo is simply Debian, plus Nokia software, patches and configuration.
It's the same way with the kernel. Very few people use Linux-proper; they use a kernel provided by their vendor. But it's still Linux. It's still 99.9% mainline, and each new version that's released is repatched, recertified, and released. The further from mainline, the more work it is for the vendor.
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.
__________________
-- Worse than not knowing is not wanting to know! --
http://temporaryland.wordpress.com/
-- Worse than not knowing is not wanting to know! --
http://temporaryland.wordpress.com/
Last edited by rm42; 2010-02-15 at 21:49.
| The Following User Says Thank You to rm42 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-02-15
, 21:53
|
|
Posts: 149 |
Thanked: 21 times |
Joined on Jun 2007
@ Germany
|
#46
|
Personally, RPM is much easier for me and I can build RPM packages on desktop systems.
This is personally a big plus, even more if a 4" N920-MeeGo with capacitive screen and no hw keyboard comes out
... after this, my 3GS get some real competition 
This is personally a big plus, even more if a 4" N920-MeeGo with capacitive screen and no hw keyboard comes out
... after this, my 3GS get some real competition
|
|
2010-02-15
, 22:02
|
|
Posts: 3,428 |
Thanked: 2,856 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
|
#47
|
Originally Posted by rm42
Again you're ignoring some very important things in ordrer to simplify. Debian systems share a lot in common with regard to *structure* of the OS to every other GNU/Linux out there *except* rpm based systems.
95% of Debian is simply Linux. Again, there has been a lot of FUD spread over the years about Debian's inherent superiority to every thing else. The facts are that with proper packagers/maintainers and RPM based system can be just as solid. (And yes, things have improved a lot since the old Red Hat up2date days.) There are no technical impediments to this choice. Yes, some of us will have to learn to package things a little differently, but the bulk of the work will be done by Nokia and they seem to be fine with doing it. So, relax it will be alright.
In the Linux world there really is RPM-based.. and then everyone else. I have built a complete Linux distribution from the Linux From Scratch and FHS guidelines and everything was normal. It looked the same as Arch, gentoo, slackware or debian.
When moving to an rpm-base everything from network config files, to system config files, to a mess of other things moved to weird locations. It's like moving from XP to Vista.. they just change stuff to change stuff. And it makes it worse that no two rpm systems changed stuff in the same way.. thery're all different.
The problem here is not specifically the RPM management (while I still belive the debian tools such as aptitude beat the rpm yum and up2date, there is Smart Package Manager which beats them all so not the point) - its the move to a *fedora* base over a *debian* base. This includes much more than a simple spec file.
| The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to fatalsaint For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-02-15
, 22:02
|
|
Posts: 310 |
Thanked: 383 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#48
|
Originally Posted by rm42
By "Linux" I assume you mean libc, GNU utilities and toolchain, X11, QT/GTK, KDE/Gnome, udev, dcop/dbus, etc. Do you have any idea how much integration work goes into transforming a bunch of source tarballs into a distribution?
95% of Debian is simply Linux. Again, there has been a lot of FUD spread over the years about Debian's inherent superiority to every thing else. The facts are that with proper packagers/maintainers and RPM based system can be just as solid. (And yes, things have improved a lot since the old Red Hat up2date days.) There are no technical impediments to this choice. Yes, some of us will have to learn to package things a little differently, but the bulk of the work will be done by Nokia and they seem to be fine with doing it. So, relax it will be alright.
Debian is superior to all other distributions in the area of package management, because it has to be. It bills itself as the universal operating system - maintained by disparate users, not centrally controlled, across different platforms, different languages. In order to do this, it must have solid version control, policies, configuration standards, and dependency management.
Why do you think so many other successful distributions out there are Debian-derived?
Ubuntu/Kubuntu, Knoppix, Xandros, Maemo, Linspire, .. Name one successful Redhat/Fedora derived OS.
You say that an RPM-based distro can be just as solid. I agree. It can.
So why switch? What is the advantage, exactly? You're losing:
- The Debian repositories and community
- Package script interactivity
- Solid distribution upgradability
- A stable platform (it will takes months to restablize on a Fedora core)
What are you gaining?
| The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to nightfire For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2010-02-15
, 22:14
|
|
Posts: 1,366 |
Thanked: 1,185 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
|
#49
|
Is the whole point of LSB not to make these sort of techno-religious arguments a thing of the past.
http://wiki.debian.org/LSB
http://wiki.debian.org/LSB
__________________
N900_Email_Options Wiki Page
N900_Email_Options Wiki Page
|
|
2010-02-15
, 22:18
|
|
Posts: 310 |
Thanked: 383 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#50
|
Originally Posted by mikec
You are right... but you know we're not there yet..
Is the whole point of LSB not to make these sort of techno-religious arguments a thing of the past.
http://wiki.debian.org/LSB
 |
| Tags |
| rabble-rousing, rpm vs. deb war, rpmligion vs debligion, vote attila77 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:54.
I have got nothing against RPM on x86, but a lots of things if we are on ARM.
I hope it clarify my position.
OT -- At the risk of being shot : why Oh ! why is there not only one software package for all the distros ? (yes, I am aware of past debates).