I read the article. It doesn't sound like bashing. I
have been bashed for using Linux and to paraphrase my
favorite debate line that, senator is not bashing.
The upshot of the article is:
- We decided that RPM's are the defacto standard
- DEB's are more reliable, easier to update and
conform to
Hamma Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The upshot of the article is:
- We decided that RPM's are the defacto standard
Fact: A limited set subset of RPM v3 is the LSB packaging standard.
No distribution is intended to use these as native packages, only for
LSB packages.
- DEB's are more
* David McNab ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
...
Also, how much success have people had with the 'alien' utility for
converting .rpm to .deb? I've heard people saying that 'alien' is pretty
evil and can seriously screw up a debian installation.
Anything can seriously screw up any
I just received my September issue of LinuxFormat
Magazine. The following from page 62 should be of
interest to this group:
RPMs in, DEBs out
LINUX STANDARDS BOARDS SETTLES ON RPM
The Linux Standards Board has recently released
1.0 of the LSB specification, and have agreed on
RPM as the
From my short time with Debian so far, I sense that there may be some
discrimination against the debian platform. The excerpt below is one
dramatic instance.
Can someone please comment further about anti-debian discrimination?
Also, how much success have people had with the 'alien' utility for
David McNab [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From my short time with Debian so far, I sense that there may be some
discrimination against the debian platform. The excerpt below is one
dramatic instance.
The excerpt below is not one dramatic instance. It's a sensationalist
article from a publication
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 06:43:06PM -0700, Miaoling Chiu wrote:
I just received my September issue of LinuxFormat
Magazine. The following from page 62 should be of
interest to this group:
RPMs in, DEBs out
LINUX STANDARDS BOARDS SETTLES ON RPM
The Linux Standards Board has recently
On Thursday 23 August 2001 07:34 pm, Paul M Foster wrote:
Debian (if it wants to be LSB compliant) provide a way to install the RPMs
from such a vendor.
As a sidenote, Debian does, via the rpm and alien packages.
- David Nusinow
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David McNab writes:
Can someone please comment further about anti-debian discrimination?
Please do not do so until you have read the LSB specification. This does
not mean what you think it does.
I've heard people saying that 'alien' is pretty evil and can seriously
screw up a debian
Thorsten Manegold wrote:
It is done on a per package basis.
So in that respect it's like rpm. No?
'apt-get install exim' will install
all libraries that it depends on and
Doesn't rpm do that too?
uninstall all mta's that it conflicts
with.
With or without asking?
The
Thorsten Manegold wrote:
As I see it after reading the comparison at
http://kitenet.net/~joey/pkg-comp.html
the rpm format is comparible with the dep format feature-wise.
Rpm is even ahead in some (IMHO important) areas like
file-dependencies whereas dep only supports package deps.
File
No, RPM has nothing like APT. If you have any dependency problems,
misconfigured packages, etc, one apt-get -f install will fix it. I
can set up an /etc/apt/sources.list file that points to two different
FTP sites and APT will automagically download any package I tell it to
and all of the
Hi!
No, RPM has nothing like APT. If you have any dependency problems,
misconfigured packages, etc, one apt-get -f install will fix it. I
can set up an /etc/apt/sources.list file that points to two different
FTP sites and APT will automagically download any package I tell it to
and all
In foo.debian-user, you wrote:
So if I understand you and others who have replied correctly, the
main advantage is the automatic dep-resolustion via ftp.
But it seems to me that this has nothing to do with the deb format
itself. Instead it is something that results out of Debian making
HI!
Could someone please enlighten me to the differences in functionality
between deb and rpm packages? I'm especially interested in
dependencies. Is this done on a per file basis, so that each package
has info, what files the program needs, or on a package(name) basis
(meaning the packages
It is done on a per package basis. 'apt-get install exim' will install
all libraries that it depends on and uninstall all mta's that it conflicts
with.
The .deb format is not just a package format it is a database of
information about packages, namely version, dependencies, conflicts and
It is done on a per package basis.
So in that respect it's like rpm. No?
'apt-get install exim' will install
all libraries that it depends on and
Doesn't rpm do that too?
uninstall all mta's that it conflicts
with.
With or without asking?
The .deb format is not just a package
On Mon, Apr 26, 1999 at 06:54:32PM +0200, Thorsten Manegold wrote:
[...]
I heard that it's supposed to be supperior. As a matter of fact that
is the main reason for me to try Debian (I started out with SuSE and
am still using it. However I don't like the way they package things
as it's not
I heard that it's supposed to be supperior. As a matter of fact that
is the main reason for me to try Debian (I started out with SuSE and
am still using it. However I don't like the way they package things
as it's not compatible to rpm's that I find on the net since they
aor usually for
Chad A. Adlawan wrote:
i dont have the URL handy, but since u asked for it and if u really want
perfecyly detailed/technical comparison, ask the maintainer of the debian
package 'alien' (thats the package w/c installs .rpm's like .deb's) ...
he has a website w/c discusses all that, in
Could someone please enlighten me to the differences in functionality
between deb and rpm packages?
Thorsten, check out a nice page which Joey put up summarizing features of
the different package formats. You can find it at
http://kitenet.net/~joey/pkg-comp.html.
Regarding dependencies,
On: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:36:25 +0200 jdassen writes:
The .deb count is probably somewhere in the 2000-2500 range
(calculate from debian/dists/unstable/*/binary-i386/Packages.gz for
precise numbers).
I just counted 2479 in unstable main, contrib, non-free, non-US.
Torsten
Hi all,
Lots people have told me that there are more deb packages than
rpm. But just by looking at the web site rufus.w3.org/linux/RPM/, they
have 10434 packages listed.
Now, do we have this number of deb packages?? Am I missing out any
gook web site??
Anyway, we can
On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 12:28:57AM +1000, Shao Ying Zhang wrote:
Lots people have told me that there are more deb packages than
rpm. But just by looking at the web site rufus.w3.org/linux/RPM/, they
have 10434 packages listed.
AFAIK, this count include different versions, ports to
jdassen == jdassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jdassen X-Mailer: Mutt 0.84
jdassen On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 12:28:57AM +1000, Shao Ying Zhang wrote:
Lots people have told me that there are more deb packages than rpm. But
just by looking at the web site rufus.w3.org/linux/RPM/, they have
25 matches
Mail list logo
