I do not believe the problem is with the RPM design but more in the individual respository mantainers or builders. In the case of Redhat/Fedora, you will have no problems with dependencies IF you use repositories that use non-speccific repository dependencies. Some repositories make their specific packages dependecies for their RPMS. This is what creates RPM hell. The solution, in the case of Redhat/Fedora, is DON"T use RPM's from sources like Dag's or ATrpms. However, I have found that I can use RPM's from Freshrpms without a problem in many cases.
So, RPM is not the problem it is the creators of the fringe RPM respositories that are the problem.
Totally agree. That's the reason why Slackware works almost without package management. And the same can happen to DEB and others.
I've seen some people complain about that on Arch: too easy for everyone to create packages. That's why I've seen some people saying at OSNews about Arch that TUR packages are better that -current ones.
BTW I'm using Arch right now. So far the only problem I got was the xdm package at current. Can't remember the file, but some config files were pointing at the wrong directories.
Bruno
RPM is trash, don't litter...
sad... You don't usually make such meaningless sweeping statements... RPM is the redhat package manager. That's all it is, whether it is good or bad is not for Arch users to decide.
]]>So, RPM is not the problem it is the creators of the fringe RPM respositories that are the problem.
]]>I always found with RPM (using RH, then MDK, then RH, then I think Ark) that there are dependency problems. I'd end up trying to install something, then manually finding its dependencies on rpmfind.net or whatever. Mandrake addressed this slightly, and I suppose RHN should have helped as well, but it just never seemed to work smoothly.
I don't know about the state of dependency checking/resolving with RPM now, haven't used it for ages. But unless it's much more functional, it's just too much hassle!
Was much happier when I changed to a Debian-based distro.. can't remember which, and even happier again when I changed to Gentoo. Even with emerge tho, I managed to screw my system up occasionally due to not editing config files correctly.
Became a distro slut for a while, getting my hit from distrowatch every week or so, and then Arch came and Pacman sorted everything out
Don't think I'll be using any RPM distros again
]]>I just wanna say that I totally agree with Sarah31!
uh oh. She hates that. :-D
]]>For an example of a distro that uses RPMs well, check out PLD.
no thanks i am happy with my current distro ... i don't need and don't like and rpm distro.
]]>For easily usable, tar.gz based packages are best, because you dont need special tools to open them. With RPMs, I need some sort of script/program to open them, many of which are not standard.
The stability part is where RPM fails. There ARE inherent flaws in the RPM package format (says it right on the RPM website) that cause an RPM to simply not install. It'll freeze up. Considering the actual package does "so little", I think making it work 99.9% of the time is really important.
Hi,
Dusty wrote:wdemoss wrote:rpms did not origionally have dependency checking?
They've had dependency checking as long as I've known, but never had automatic dependency resolution until recently.
rpm in itself doesn't resolve them
That's true.... just like pacman packages don't resolve dependencies either.
Now that the question is brought up, I don't know what makes a package *format* good... it's the tools that manipulate the packages that matter.
Dusty
]]>wdemoss wrote:rpms did not origionally have dependency checking?
They've had dependency checking as long as I've known, but never had automatic dependency resolution until recently.
rpm in itself doesn't resolve them, this job is left to a second tool like tose
which come with the most distros. I once used Mandrake which comes with
drakerpm or something like that. Whenever you open it it checks the
database of the installed and the available packages, which takes quite long.
That the automatic resolving is not included to rpm is a clear shortcoming for
me, since some jobs just needs to be done twice. Thus it is easier to brake
the system. While this has nothing to do with rpm itself it is a matter of the
individual implementation.
bye neri
]]>rpms did not origionally have dependency checking?
They've had dependency checking as long as I've known, but never had automatic dependency resolution until recently.
one only has to look a debian's packaging to get an example of a well designed package format that is portable to any debain based distro. all the debian based sytem use the same management with a different front end.
I have very little experience with making debian packages, but I don't agree with the anology. rpm isn't a distrobution, it's a package management tool. Debian based distrobutions are based on debian which uses dpkg/apt-get as it's package management tool. If different distrobutions just took dpkg/apt-get from debian and started their own base then I'd wagger that there would be alot more problems using packages from different dpkg/apt-get distrobutions, just like rpms.
it's about level of control. Anybody could release a debian (or pacman for that matter) package that didn't fit into the Debian(Arch) filesystem. But people are smart enough not to do that.
Generally, the RPM-based distros seem to be most interested in being incompatible so they can't be interchangeable. MS tactics, but that's what happens when you're selling a system instead of giving it... Debian and Arch are open projects, that's why they work, it's why their package management stuff works too.
A package is basically just a formatted collection of files... it doesn't matter what the suffix is.
Dusty
]]>