You are not logged in.

#1 2004-07-01 11:54:10

Leigh
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2004-06-25
Posts: 533

packages rpm arch deb etc...

I'm still fairly new to linux but have learned alot in the past year starting with mandrake, then debian and now arch. After trying out arch and needing to learn to make my own packages that wern't listed in the arch package list I started thinking, which usully gets me in trouble. I'm pretty good with programming on cad systems but that's not very comparable to linux. Anyway I read alot about the differences between rpm based distros verses arch or debian and how the differences in file structures between the different flavors of linux makes rpms very unreliable depending on which distro they were made for.  This is what I was thinking.....

From what I do know is that a certain package has dependencies no matter what distro it is packaged for and, unless I'm mistaken, those dependencies are usually the same set of dependencies regardless of the distro.  The main difference is the directory structure between distros that make packages from one distro not work on a different distro, which complicates or crupts the tracking of those dependencies and packages.

Why couldn't there be a new system created that could take a rpm package or .deb package and break it down and convert it to work for this new system? Considering that in general, Linux is still Linux regardless whether it's redhat, suse, mandrake, debian, arch, etc...

I'm not saying that this would be good or bad, and more than likely, it may be more trouble than it's worth if at all possible to do. From what I can see from my experience with linux, is that it's main drawback is standardizing. If I were smart enough and was a developer, I think a great project to play with would be taking, say two or three of the most popular linux distros and figure out a way to splice them together to try and come up with a standardized linux distro that could be compatible with most flavors of linux. Or if I was a Arch developer I might try analyzing debians derectory structure and system and come up with a way to break down .deb packages for use with pacman considering debian probably has the largest repositorys for linux. I suspect that the linux gurus who love the makepkg comand and grabbing source files will be disturbed by my thinking too much but I'm sure there are alot of people would would love using linux without having to know how to build from source and make thier own packages, and why should those people have to be limited to using mandrake and be forced to install all of Gnome just to run one gtk application kind of thing.


-- archlinux 是一个极好的 linux

Offline

#2 2004-07-01 15:03:09

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: packages rpm arch deb etc...

Leigh wrote:

From what I do know is that a certain package has dependencies no matter what distro it is packaged for and, unless I'm mistaken, those dependencies are usually the same set of dependencies regardless of the distro.

Not strictly speaking.  Some distributions package two or more programs into one package, some distributions separate them, etc.

Why couldn't there be a new system created that could take a rpm package or .deb package and break it down and convert it to work for this new system? Considering that in general, Linux is still Linux regardless whether it's redhat, suse, mandrake, debian, arch, etc...

It would be possible, but not worth the effort.  There are two reasons. Firstly, different distros often place files in different directories for whatever reason, or give them different names.  A standard would be good here, but nobody can agree on what's best (only here most people agree that the arch way is best :-D).  Second, Arch packages are supposed to be compiled with i686 optimizations; most distros use i386, some are i586.  Therefore each package *should* be recompiled for Arch before being released.

There has been discussion of applications for converting file formats (especially Gentoo e-builds). Nothing is stopping anybody from trying something like this, but the developers have no plans to work on it.

Dusty

Offline

#3 2004-07-01 17:23:38

Xentac
Forum Fellow
From: Victoria, BC
Registered: 2003-01-17
Posts: 1,797
Website

Re: packages rpm arch deb etc...

Dependencies aren't strictly, "I need this program to be installed before I can run this program".  Versions of dependencies are important too.  For example, with Arch, we try to keep our libraries as up to date as possible.  You won't find that in a Red Hat or a Debian (I'm pretty sure even unstable lags behind us).  Converting their packages will run into other problems, like symbols being messed up or improper library versions.

You mention a standard.  Really, the standard is source.  I have yet to see a decent binary standard, thought the LSB tries.


I have discovered that all of mans unhappiness derives from only one source, not being able to sit quietly in a room
- Blaise Pascal

Offline

#4 2004-07-02 03:51:32

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: packages rpm arch deb etc...

standards would be nice. in the open source community though there would be alot of whining and crying as some would see that as a step towards limiting ones choices.

i am all for standardization, when it is done right, and a good start would be having stricter standards in alot of the programming languages. Even then you will have programmers that create junk like frontpage and flash.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#5 2004-07-02 08:51:02

sweiss
Member
Registered: 2004-02-16
Posts: 635

Re: packages rpm arch deb etc...

Zero-Install should become a standard. Or maybe autopackages. But that would probably never work, which is a shame.

Anyway, tar.gz based packages are much better than all the other weird formats. Just keep it simple...

Offline

#6 2004-07-02 15:39:44

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: packages rpm arch deb etc...

Standards stifle creativity.  There is a place for standards, but there is also a place for experimentation.  The web would be a hodgepodge of pages that only work on one browser (its bad enough as it is) if it hadn't been for w3c implementing standards that both browsers and designers should try to adhere to.  On the other hand, if it hadn't been for the experimentation that MS and Netscape and others put into developing new technologies, the standards wouldn't be satisfactory; we'd still have to design for HTML 3 or something.  (As it is, there are still problems with the HTML 4 and XHTML standards, hopefully they will be fixed).

This is what is happening with package management.  RPM is currently a standard, mostly because it was first. But it isn't really good enough, so various people have come up with alternatives. None of them is good enough to oust RPM's top position yet (it has to be a lot better before people will go to the huge trouble of converting).  Eventually, there will probably be something developed, but at the moment there is no point in speculating on what it will be or making suggestions as to what it should be, as it will be more of an emotional than logical argument.

Emacs and vim are text editing standards because they are obviously superior to most other options.  They are founded on different philosophies (inclusiveness vs simplicity), so both are, perhaps, necessary.  On the other hand, there is currently no standard for the window manager/desktop market because there is no one item that is obviously superior.

In the open source community, standards have to be set mostly based on popularity.  You can't just say "This is what you should use because we say so" because if it isn't the best option people will have problems with it and will use or devise something else. In general, if there is one project that is superior, it will become the standard because very few people will use anything else (for example: the Linux kernel, or google search service, or xfree86 before the split)

One other thing, one of the main things that differentiates a Linux distro is its package management scheme.  Arch has other advantages besides pacman, especially its open philosophy (To me, Arch is better than Debian because it doesn't require me to use only GNU apps without a lot of hassle).   If there was one superior package management system that all distros used, there would be far fewer distros. This may or may not be a good thing.

Finally, if you want a standard, then go use Red Hat and RPM. That is the standard right now. The nice thing about open source is that you aren't required to use it if you don't want to.  Standards can only be guidelines, or all the new ideas get killed.

Dusty

Offline

#7 2004-07-02 16:24:12

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: packages rpm arch deb etc...

Dusty wrote:

Standards stifle creativity.

C has had standards for a long time now and it doe snot seem to "stifle" creativity. standards in a programming or scripting language are very important. it makes it easier to teach and learn. without standrads you get perl which is write once read never mess.

There is a place for standards, but there is also a place for experimentation.  The web would be a hodgepodge of pages that only work on one browser (its bad enough as it is) if it hadn't been for w3c implementing standards that both browsers and designers should try to adhere to.

the problem is that many web page developers use application which may create nice pages but the code is only 50% good. frontpage, for example, can make soem nice stuff but it also create ALOT of extraneous code. The resulting pages are usually only good to view well on Internet Explorer which has to be one of the worst browsers for allowing crap code and functionality in general.

On the other hand, if it hadn't been for the experimentation that MS and Netscape and others put into developing new technologies, the standards wouldn't be satisfactory; we'd still have to design for HTML 3 or something.  (As it is, there are still problems with the HTML 4 and XHTML standards, hopefully they will be fixed).

yes true they did create new stuff but they did it largely after new standards had been developed.

This is what is happening with package management.  RPM is currently a standard, mostly because it was first. But it isn't really good enough, so various people have come up with alternatives. None of them is good enough to oust RPM's top position yet (it has to be a lot better before people will go to the huge trouble of converting).  Eventually, there will probably be something developed, but at the moment there is no point in speculating on what it will be or making suggestions as to what it should be, as it will be more of an emotional than logical argument.

RPM was chosen because the majority of users out there still use RPM based distros. RPM packages are NOT better inheritantly than .debs or anything else. This is one on of many ways LFS or FSH or whatever the linux "standard" body is called, has screwed up.

Emacs and vim are text editing standards because they are obviously superior to most other options.  They are founded on different philosophies (inclusiveness vs simplicity), so both are, perhaps, necessary.  On the other hand, there is currently no standard for the window manager/desktop market because there is no one item that is obviously superior.

i would not say these are standards per se. they have definitely been influences in the world of editors but not standards.

In the open source community, standards have to be set mostly based on popularity.  You can't just say "This is what you should use because we say so" because if it isn't the best option people will have problems with it and will use or devise something else. In general, if there is one project that is superior, it will become the standard because very few people will use anything else (for example: the Linux kernel, or google search service, or xfree86 before the split)

standards should not be set on popularity and for the most part they are not. they should be set on logic and that logic should be "what is the most effective and efficient manner we can organize something"

One other thing, one of the main things that differentiates a Linux distro is its package management scheme.  Arch has other advantages besides pacman, especially its open philosophy (To me, Arch is better than Debian because it doesn't require me to use only GNU apps without a lot of hassle).   If there was one superior package management system that all distros used, there would be far fewer distros. This may or may not be a good thing.

less is more. those developers that are a benefit to linux would likely remain and having less distros would allow for more standardization which would be a gift to the community because then new users would not have the rough road they usually do when they start out with linux.

Finally, if you want a standard, then go use Red Hat and RPM. That is the standard right now. The nice thing about open source is that you aren't required to use it if you don't want to.  Standards can only be guidelines, or all the new ideas get killed.

that is not what open source is about. telling people to screw off we do things our way and we're not changing is just dumb. arch does not have to abide by all the standards but it does not have to be a matter of relearning everything to be able to use it. people should feel like they can make their suggestions "stupid" or otherwise without being told to screw off.

standrads are guidelines not laws and they definitely do not stifle creativity. a good set of standards will shorten the route to the end and allow more people the opportunity to walk down that same path and create a new story along the way.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#8 2004-07-02 16:58:22

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: packages rpm arch deb etc...

sarah31 wrote:

C has had standards for a long time now and it doe snot seem to "stifle" creativity.

I disagree.  Because of the standards, it is very difficult to fix the problems inherent in that language. That's why so many other languages have been developed to overcome these problems. For example, if C wasn't standard, C++ could have been written right into C instead of being a new language. One of the main problems with C++, in fact, was that it wanted to be backwards compatible with C standards, that were broken in the first place.

yes true they did create new stuff but they did it largely after new standards had been developed.

A good argument both in favour of and against standards is Javascript.  Netscape developed Javascript without any regards to standard HTML.  Then MS jumped on the bandwagon with JScript. They conflict.  They need to be standardized (EBScript, isn't it called?) so that they work across browsers.

First experiment and get it right, then standardize.

RPM was chosen because the majority of users out there still use RPM based distros. RPM packages are NOT better inheritantly than .debs or anything else.

Which is exactly what I was saying, though I didn't really say it as clearly. wink  You seem to be arguing that we need standards, but that the standards we have suck.  So we need better standards... but if we change the standards all the time, they aren't standards anymore.  IMO, standards can't be created until experimentation and usage has told us what is best.

standards should not be set on popularity and for the most part they are not. they should be set on logic and that logic should be "what is the most effective and efficient manner we can organize something"

Now we're dealing with quality of standard? Is it ok to ignore a standard if it is not based on logic? Is it ok to choose TCP/IP as a standard based on popularity and to ignore the ISO standards? Who gets to decide whether or not a standard should be followed or not?

that is not what open source is about. telling people to screw off we do things our way and we're not changing is just dumb. arch does not have to abide by all the standards but it does not have to be a matter of relearning everything to be able to use it. people should feel like they can make their suggestions "stupid" or otherwise without being told to screw off.

That's not what I meant to say. I was saying that since the standards suck (Red Hat and RPM), and Arch is doing its own thing (pacman) in a much better way (in my opinion), choose Arch. On the other hand, if you don't like Arch, find a packaging system that does things your way.  There are certainly enough options out there.

For example, if somebody says Arch should use RPM because it is standard, what do you say? You say on the one hand that RPM sucks, on the other hand you say that standards make using Linux easier.  Therefore you have to say that the standard should be changed to something that doesn't suck.  That's what a lot of people think, so they go out and develop a new format that they hope will become standard. Who gets to say which format should be made standard?

In short, I agree with you that there should be some standards in package management. However, until you can tell me what packaging system should be standard AND can convince the majority of the Linux community that system should be standard, you will not have a standard.

As I said, nothing will be standard until there is a system that works and is superior to all other systems. That's why everybody uses google, before google nobody was going to settle on a standard search engine...

Dusty

Offline

#9 2004-07-02 18:31:58

sweiss
Member
Registered: 2004-02-16
Posts: 635

Re: packages rpm arch deb etc...

I think standard is determined, or at least can be determined, by the developers. Instead of providing an RPM for binary, use the format you want to promote. If I ever start an open source project I believe I'll try to promote a new packaging system. Perhaps the base packages should remain as they are, packages, because the people in charge of the distribution should keep it to their liking, after all. However, I think external software does need a new standard, and that's up to the external developers.

Offline

#10 2004-07-06 03:22:53

Leigh
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2004-06-25
Posts: 533

Re: packages rpm arch deb etc...

I can understand how complicated this all is although im clueless about details. Being faily new to linux I'm just overwhelmed by all the different choices and distros. After achieving a working debian system I learned the basics but ended up with a system totally full of software that I either didn't want or didn't know what it's purpose was other that it was required as a dependency for a program I did want to have or keep. That was my biggest turn off with debian. Mandrake was frustrating because although it was the easiest to install, It seemed to do alot of things for me leaving me niave to alot of the things I wanted to learn about linux. Mandrake was a good starting point for me. Arch apeals to me because it lets me do much of the work which helps me learn alot about what the heck makes things tick, while keeping things simple and unbloated as far as software and dependencies go. I am surprised arch is not more popular than it is, but wouldn't be surprised if the arch way of doing things did become a standard in the linux world, especially with the faster and more powerful systems nowadays. I guess a good analogy would be that even though a 57 chevy is a clasic you just don't see many of them on the road any more.  computers are evolving and so will the operating systems that drive them. smile I wish I was as techy about linux as alot of you seem to be, but even with my lack of linux knoledge I was able to get a kick butt arch system running. Now only if I can figure out how to apply the dagum patch 2.6.7 to my kernel and rebuild so I can get supermount working I'll be a totally happy camper. every time I apply the patch I keep getting errors asking me which file to patch.  I'll figure it out or ask questions in a more suited forum catagory. I would like to give all the arch developera a kiss for doing such a great job! big_smile


-- archlinux 是一个极好的 linux

Offline

#11 2004-07-06 15:41:14

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: packages rpm arch deb etc...

Leigh wrote:

I wish I was as techy about linux as alot of you seem to be

That comes from using distros like Arch.  If you stick around here, you'll one day suddenly find you answer more questions than you ask, and from there it's only one small step to posting.... off topic all the time. :oops:

Dusty

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB