Arch now has RPM support ?

Xaero_Vincent · 2006-05-22 22:27:26

link
link edited to fit to page -Penguin

"First Submitted: Mon, 22 May 2006 00:53:31 +0000"
*Today*

RPM sucks but this is still very cool!

Cerebral · 2006-05-22 22:36:41

Uhm... ew. I would NOT want to mix 'n' match between two different package managers myself; that could make things cluttered and ugly.

Not that it's a bad package... but I don't ever see myself using it. If there's ever an RPM that doesn't exist in pkg.tar.gz format that I need, I'll make a pacman package for it before I use RPM.

Also be aware that we'll have a hard time supporting any RPM packages if you have troubles with them.

iBertus · 2006-05-22 22:41:11

Just use rpmunpack to extract the files from your rpms...

Xaero_Vincent · 2006-05-22 22:55:57

But this broadens things a bit.

RPM is one of the most popular formats and so tens of thousands of packages exist in this format. For people who cannot find a specific package in the main repositories or in AUR and those who dont know how to make pkgbuild scripts yet or have time, can now resort to RPMs. Somehow I doubt Pacman will get in the way of RPM like APT does.

This can also be an excuse for Arch to become LSB compliant. 8)

Regards,
Vincent

raskolnikov · 2006-05-22 23:27:06

I would prefer a "rpm2pacman" script that converts rpm packages to pacman packages. Don't want rpm on arch

barebones · 2006-05-22 23:44:42

I think I'd prefer an "rpm2trashcan" script myself

I've had nothing but trouble with RPM, both with mandrake and fedora. I think things like pacman and the aur are a definate step foreward from RPM and apt, and adopting rpm for the sake of LSB complience is a bit backward. I'm pretty new to arch though, so maybe I'm missing something. Its nice to have choices, but I'm gonna stick with pacman.

Just to be clear, I don't mean this as an attack against you Xaero_Vincent, or any one else that likes RPM as far as that goes. I just don't like RPM, and figured I'd add my opinion.

WillySilly · 2006-05-22 23:46:08

Shastry was originally going to put it in community, I talked him out of it :twisted:

iphitus · 2006-05-22 23:52:49

You could compile rpm for any distro... it doesnt mean it will work well.

Instead of using rpm, make a PKGBUILD that uses rpmunpack. installing with RPM will just cause trouble. 2 package managers on one system is not cool.

Icky icky icky.

Xaero_Vincent · 2006-05-23 00:02:33

Err... I dont mean Arch should adopt RPM, I'm just saying that its nice to have that *option* if we want it. Putting it in the community repo would be nice but using basic pkgbuild is hardly an extra hassle.

ScriptDevil · 2006-05-23 04:55:58

weel rpm is OK for some pretty good stuff which distribute only as rpms or debs. If you dont like rpms, dont use rpm nor install it.
Every package like Xaero said is an option, like i use arch for a desktop and i dont need apache, thta doesnt mean apache is an unwanted package.
But true pacman is so good and its repo so vast that one has to wonder if another pm is required!
So welcome Mr.RPM, but you are not my guest

ScriptDevil · 2006-05-23 04:57:46

also if rpm is out there please put up yum too for dependency and soon well be calling ourselves Arch Hat Linux (imagine wearing an arch as a hat)

tomk · 2006-05-23 06:22:18

:shock: :evil: :cry: :twisted:

What's next? apt-get?!

scarecrow · 2006-05-23 06:31:59

It doesn't go for me:
[scarecrow@desktop rpm]$ aurbuild -b rpm

could not retrieve needed data from aur.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rpm/rpm.tar.gz: [Errno socket error] (-2, 'Nam e or service not known')

When downloading the tarball and using "makepkg" it reports elfutils as unsatisfied dependency- and that package does not exist anywhere.

PS: aurbuild now fails with
aurbuild: dependency "elfutils" not found in abs.

iphitus · 2006-05-23 06:32:50

ScriptDevil wrote:

weel rpm is OK for some pretty good stuff which distribute only as rpms or debs. If you dont like rpms, dont use rpm nor install it.
Every package like Xaero said is an option, like i use arch for a desktop and i dont need apache, thta doesnt mean apache is an unwanted package.
But true pacman is so good and its repo so vast that one has to wonder if another pm is required!
So welcome Mr.RPM, but you are not my guest

Those packages available as RPM or deb only, can easily be converted to an arch package with a suitable PKGBUILD.

As for using other packages..... why? Why would you install anything that's available from source from an RPM? And if you did that... you should do it via a PKGBUILD, not via a seperate package management system.

Sure, the packages is fine to be there, but there's no real reason to use it.

lumiwa · 2006-05-23 12:51:56

ScriptDevil wrote:

also if rpm is out there please put up yum too for dependency and soon well be calling ourselves Arch Hat Linux (imagine wearing an arch as a hat)

Why are you so against rpm? If you like it use it if you don't than...
I was SuSE user very long time and I am "friendly" with rpm and I like it but now on Arch I use a pacman but I never been so rude agains apt or pacman before... Linux is a free world.

tpowa · 2006-05-23 15:18:54

the better program is rpmextract.sh in rpmextract package, it can also handle bz2 rpms.

ScriptDevil · 2006-05-23 15:47:17

Lumiwa wrote:

Why are you so against rpm? If you like it use it if you don't than...
I was SuSE user very long time and I am "friendly" with rpm and I like it but now on Arch I use a pacman but I never been so rude agains apt or pacman before... Linux is a free world.

Was i rude towards rpm?? I merely said put up yum too because we as ArchLinux users have grown used to brilliant dependency checking( AUR pkgbuilders excuse). So I had to say yum provides the cover for rpms with depedndecy checking. Also if you felt I was biasing pacman over rpm or apt for that sake, YOU ARE MISTAKEN. I have used fedora, and yellow dog, (mandriva for a day). I dont mind rpms too as my previous post reads( The one before the one you quoted). Finally do you have an iota of the sense of humor, I meant Arch Hat as a joke. I did not find Bush flaring at all those who called him an idiot.
Forever FRIENDLY towards all package managers( Conary included)
ScriptDevil

user · 2006-05-23 15:52:06

lumiwa wrote:

Why are you so against rpm?

cause rpm suck.
grrr I am not alone.

n0gabor · 2006-05-23 18:22:02

I think Arch must have RPM in community or even extra. There are some commerical softwares which comes as an RPM, or big prg-s like cinelerra. they are easy to install with the rpm -i --nodeps command, much easier like making a PKGBUIL for rpmextrack them, and much much faster than making a PKGBUILD for recompilling them.

I don't understand the point of view of the TU-s, becouse i think linux is about options, solving a problem different ways... if i want to install with RPM i can do it, if a want to make it a nicer way, a make a PKGBUILD. Why do you take away this option from the users?

(and slackware has RPM for years, for an option only, you mustn't use it !)

so please put RPM in the repos!

(sorry for my english)

whargoul · 2006-05-23 18:39:46

Wee. Then we also need Portage (again).

Xaero_Vincent · 2006-05-23 18:49:49

I agree.

We should have RPM in the community or extra repository.

I'm having a hard time getting one of dependencies to build the RPM pkgbuild.

If more people vote for it, it should make it into community repo.

Regards,
Vincent

n0gabor · 2006-05-23 18:54:30

whargoul wrote:

Wee. Then we also need Portage (again).

i'd be happy about it
if Archlinux would have as much packages as debian has or gentoo in portage, i think it would be the wery best linux distro. (and improvements in documentation too)

anyway it its the best distro for me!

tomk · 2006-05-23 18:58:47

n0gabor wrote:

Why do you take away this option from the users?

Nobody's taking anything away. The maintainer of the AUR rpm package is a TU.

n0gabor wrote:

so please put RPM in the repos!

I sincerely hope that this never gets to community, but if it does, it will be without my help.

n0gabor wrote:

(sorry for my english)

No problem.

If you want to use rpms, use an rpm-based distro. If you want to use Arch, be loyal and support the ongoing outstanding work being done on pacman, and if you find you have to use an occasional rpm, use one of the suggested workarounds.

n0gabor · 2006-05-23 19:16:50

i don't understand why'd it bother you and others. it could be an option only (by default community repo isn't enabled in pacman.conf too) that would make my life sometimes easier (and others too) if someone doesn't want to use it or harm his/her system then he/she never uses it...
i'd like you only to let me decide using it or no

and no i don't want to use an RPM based distro, but until there are softwares only avalible in RPM (no pkg.tar.gz) and recompiling takes much time (or isn't possible), it would be a good idea in my opinion.

Lone_Wolf · 2006-05-23 19:18:28

This is one time where i wish the AUR had the option to vote AGAINST a package being moved to community.

Before i switched to Arch last year i used Suse 9.3.
They had gaim 1.1 in that release, and as there were many improvements in gaim 1.5 i wanted to use that.
Gaim site didn't have an rpm for Suse, so i used the src.rpm.

Yast (Suse front end for rpm) told me there was 1 dependency error so i thought fixing would be easy.

To get gaim installed i had to check the dependecies for about 20 packages manually, and upgrade 5 of them with newer versions, none of which were in the official Suse repositiories.
It took me 8 hours to get gaim 1.5 running.

That was when i started looking for another distro.
I miss some of the tools SuSe has (Sax in textmode is great for configuring X11) , but since i switched to Arch i NEVER have missed rpm.

I am ok with it being in the aur , but i think the reasons for not putting aurbuild in community are just as valid (probably more) for keeping rpm in UNSUPPORTED.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-05-22 22:27:26

Arch now has RPM support ?

#2 2006-05-22 22:36:41

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#3 2006-05-22 22:41:11

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#4 2006-05-22 22:55:57

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#5 2006-05-22 23:27:06

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#6 2006-05-22 23:44:42

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#7 2006-05-22 23:46:08

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#8 2006-05-22 23:52:49

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#9 2006-05-23 00:02:33

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#10 2006-05-23 04:55:58

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#11 2006-05-23 04:57:46

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#12 2006-05-23 06:22:18

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#13 2006-05-23 06:31:59

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#14 2006-05-23 06:32:50

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#15 2006-05-23 12:51:56

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#16 2006-05-23 15:18:54

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#17 2006-05-23 15:47:17

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#18 2006-05-23 15:52:06

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#19 2006-05-23 18:22:02

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#20 2006-05-23 18:39:46

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#21 2006-05-23 18:49:49

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#22 2006-05-23 18:54:30

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#23 2006-05-23 18:58:47

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#24 2006-05-23 19:16:50

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

#25 2006-05-23 19:18:28

Re: Arch now has RPM support ?

Board footer