Re: Anti-Debian Discruimination (was: DEB vs RPM)
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 a stricter policy making them more reliable. - Don't know if RPM's will follow this. - A standard should follow this tighter set of rules. Just sound like someone has an over-inflated view of themselves. Scott Hamma --- Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 which apparently hasn't read the LSB, hasn't read the discussion that went through debian-user and debian-devel, and is just trying to rile people up (LATE) to get readers. I'd suggest not reading LinuxFormat, if they can't be troubled to get things right. Check out http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/debian-user-200107/msg00071.html, for starters. From: Miaoling Chiu [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -- Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] - In a variety of flavors! FORTH IF HONK THEN -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: Anti-Debian Discruimination (was: DEB vs RPM)
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 reliable, easier to update and conform to a stricter policy making them more reliable. - Don't know if RPM's will follow this. Fact: The entire point of the LSB is to specify, in hideous detail, precisely what LSB packages may use and depend on, down to the library and library path level. It's hard to see how the authors of the article could have read the LSB at all and still come up with this argument. -- Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] - In a variety of flavors! Got a dictionary? I want to know the meaning of life.
Re: Anti-Debian Discruimination (was: DEB vs RPM)
* 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 installation, if you don't know what you're doing. E.g. RPMs that come with startup scripts try to install them in /etc/rc.d/init.d, so you have to edit relevant scripts before making a .deb. I never had a problem converting rpm to deb, but then I have half a clue... and also I don't have to do that too often. Dima -- E-mail dmaziuk at bmrb dot wisc dot edu (@work) or at crosswinds dot net (@home) http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu/descript/gpgkey.dmaziuk.ascii -- GnuPG 1.0.4 public key The wombat is a mixture of chalk and clay used for respiration. -- MegaHal
DEB vs RPM
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 standard package format. This has naturally caused consternation and friction in the Debian community. There has been a long standing - and heated - dicussion on the relative merits of RPM's and DEB's. While RPM appear to be supported in more distributions than DEB, it seems that a DEB-based system is more reliable when upgrading and updating distributions. Debian has long hailed it's apt-get technology, and many users find it superior to RPM's. The true key to the success of DEB packages has not been in apt, but in the packages themselves and the fact that they conform to strict Debian policy, and hence have dependency information correctly identified. Whether a similar policy would be applied to RPM seems unclear, although if they are to be as reliable as DEB's a policy may be needed. Successful standardisation usually relies on enforcement of policy and procedure, and this seems to be the case here. The decision is a key move for Linux developers and distributors and should make distribution and, crucially, installation of software a much easier proposition. __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Anti-Debian Discruimination (was: DEB vs RPM)
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 converting .rpm to .deb? I've heard people saying that 'alien' is pretty evil and can seriously screw up a debian installation. Cheers David From: Miaoling Chiu [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 standard package format. This has naturally caused consternation and friction in the Debian community. There has been a long standing - and heated - dicussion on the relative merits of RPM's and DEB's. While RPM appear to be supported in more distributions than DEB, it seems that a DEB-based system is more reliable when upgrading and updating distributions. Debian has long hailed it's apt-get technology, and many users find it superior to RPM's. The true key to the success of DEB packages has not been in apt, but in the packages themselves and the fact that they conform to strict Debian policy, and hence have dependency information correctly identified. Whether a similar policy would be applied to RPM seems unclear, although if they are to be as reliable as DEB's a policy may be needed. Successful standardisation usually relies on enforcement of policy and procedure, and this seems to be the case here. The decision is a key move for Linux developers and distributors and should make distribution and, crucially, installation of software a much easier proposition. __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anti-Debian Discruimination (was: DEB vs RPM)
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 which apparently hasn't read the LSB, hasn't read the discussion that went through debian-user and debian-devel, and is just trying to rile people up (LATE) to get readers. I'd suggest not reading LinuxFormat, if they can't be troubled to get things right. Check out http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/debian-user-200107/msg00071.html, for starters. From: Miaoling Chiu [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -- Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] - In a variety of flavors! FORTH IF HONK THEN
Re: DEB vs RPM
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 released 1.0 of the LSB specification, and have agreed on RPM as the standard package format. This has naturally caused consternation and friction in the Debian community. This is old news. The LSB standardized on [an earlier version of] RPM because that is the most used packaging format. However, it should be noted that this standard is for vendors who wish to build packages to be installed and run on LSB-compliant distros. It does not dictate that Debian must natively use the RPM format, only that Debian (if it wants to be LSB compliant) provide a way to install the RPMs from such a vendor. Paul
Re: DEB vs RPM
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]
Re: Anti-Debian Discruimination (was: DEB vs RPM)
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 installation. The evil wan't int alien: it was in those rpm's. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: deb vs. rpm
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 .deb format is not just a package format it is a database of information about packages, namely version, dependencies, conflicts and As far as I know that is the case with rpm too, isn't it? recommends. That is not a feature of rpm as far as I know. Thus when you upgrade your system, dpkg/apt downloads all software selected and dependencies, then sets them up, if there is a conflict it uninstalls what is conflicting, then after everthing is installed and configure correctly, it deletes the downloaded packages so that your system is not loaded down with .deb files. There is nothing like it in existence, it is the superior package format. Forget about popularity for a moment and think about raw technical superiority. That is the debian format. You will love it when you try it. 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 just to add my .02 euros :- debian has loads more packages in its distribution that redhat do in theirs, so (hopefully) you shuldn't need to mess about with (untrustworthy) .rpms from the 'net. frankie -- Confession is good for the soul only in the sense that a tweed coat is good for dandruff. --Peter de Vries http://www.skunkpussy.freeserve.co.uk - Drum'n'Bass music, samples and links. ICQ://25576761begin:vcard n:;Frankie x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://www.skunkpussy.freeserve.co.uk adr:;;;Birmingham;;;UK version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Mr x-mozilla-cpt:;-8160 fn:Frankie end:vcard
Re: deb vs. rpm
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 dependancies are a very dubious feature. Everyone who's actually had to deal with them hates them. The area in which dep is better in an important area is recommendations/suggestions. It also supposes a much more rich set of boolean operators in its depenancy fields, see the footnotes. -- see shy jo
Re: deb vs. rpm
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 dependencies. Want to upgrade to the latest stuff in unstable? Just run apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade. FTP installation/update with RedHat is a pain, probably b/c their main economic goal is to sell more CDs. Personally, I've been using Debian for several years and have never bought a CD. I've gone from waiting 4 hours on a 64K ISDN line to waiting about 30 minutes on a 10MB cable modem. -- Stephen Pitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] webmaster - http://www.mschess.org
Re: deb vs. rpm
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 of the dependencies. Want to upgrade to the latest stuff in unstable? Just run apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade. FTP installation/update with RedHat is a pain, probably b/c their main economic goal is to sell more CDs. Personally, I've been using Debian for several years and have never bought a CD. I've gone from waiting 4 hours on a 64K ISDN line to waiting about 30 minutes on a 10MB cable modem. 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 better use of the features of the packageformat. I guess you could write a program like apt-get for rpm too. 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. The area in which dep is better in an important area is recommendations/suggestions. So maybe RedHat (and others) only do not make use of the features that rpm offers, while dep-Packagers do. Also with deps you can be sure that they are comptible with your Debian system, something not the case with rpms. Am I missing someting here? TIA Thorsten Manegold
Re: deb vs. rpm
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 better use of the features of the packageformat. I guess you could write a program like apt-get for rpm too. 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. The area in which dep is better in an important area is recommendations/suggestions. So maybe RedHat (and others) only do not make use of the features that rpm offers, while dep-Packagers do. Also with deps you can be sure that they are comptible with your Debian system, something not the case with rpms. Am I missing someting here? That sounds about right. -Mitch
deb vs. rpm
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 contains the names of other packages that it requires). Which behaves better during updates? TIA Thorsten Manegold
Re: deb vs. rpm
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 recommends. Thus when you upgrade your system, dpkg/apt downloads all software selected and dependencies, then sets them up, if there is a conflict it uninstalls what is conflicting, then after everthing is installed and configure correctly, it deletes the downloaded packages so that your system is not loaded down with .deb files. There is nothing like it in existence, it is the superior package format. Forget about popularity for a moment and think about raw technical superiority. That is the debian format. You will love it when you try it. NatePuri Certified Law Student Debian GNU/Linux Monk McGeorge School of Law Sacramento, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Thorsten Manegold wrote: 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 contains the names of other packages that it requires). Which behaves better during updates? TIA Thorsten Manegold -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: deb vs. rpm
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 format it is a database of information about packages, namely version, dependencies, conflicts and As far as I know that is the case with rpm too, isn't it? recommends. That is not a feature of rpm as far as I know. Thus when you upgrade your system, dpkg/apt downloads all software selected and dependencies, then sets them up, if there is a conflict it uninstalls what is conflicting, then after everthing is installed and configure correctly, it deletes the downloaded packages so that your system is not loaded down with .deb files. There is nothing like it in existence, it is the superior package format. Forget about popularity for a moment and think about raw technical superiority. That is the debian format. You will love it when you try it. 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 RedHat). Where can I get a more detailed comparison? TIA Thorsten Manegold On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Thorsten Manegold wrote: 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 contains the names of other packages that it requires). Which behaves better during updates? TIA Thorsten Manegold -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: deb vs. rpm
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 compatible to rpm's that I find on the net since they aor usually for RedHat). Isn't the compatibility issue addressed largely by alien (though certainly not every package under the sun translates well)? I may be off mark here, but I'd guess the problem childs for alien stem primarily from dependency clashes (e.g. libc5 vs. 6), followed by poor QC in the structure of the rpm's. One worthy thing to do is a careful search of the .debs available when you are looking for a specific tool. I have on several occasions wasted my time trying to compile/set up a package off a developer's site, only to discover its existence as a .deb later. Where can I get a more detailed comparison? Seems to me the best comparison is to run both for a while. That way you will see what each is like, up close and personal. Doing things the way _you_ go about it. Kenward
Re: deb vs. rpm
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 RedHat). Where can I get a more detailed comparison? TIA Thorsten Manegold 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 astonishing detail ... Chad
Re: deb vs. rpm
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 astonishing detail ... http://kitenet.net/~joey/pkg-comp.html -- see shy jo
Re: deb vs. rpm
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, I picked up a Red Hat 5.1 CD-ROM a while ago and played with it (I've since given it away) just to see the differences. I was surprised at how crudely Red Hat handled dependencies. Compared to dselect's pop up a help screen and 'hey, resolve this mess' with 'here are my recommendations' method, Red Hat was downright barbaric about the process. While I don't claim to be a Red Hat expert, all I could get it to do was to give me a warning about dependencies, and it expected me to *manually* (look of shock on face!:-) go out and (A) find where those packages were in its package manager, and (B) do the grunt work of trying to remember the conflicting names and then selecting/deselecting them. After that experience I've never uttered a single bad word about dselect, apt-get, or dpkg.:-) -- . | Celebrate the Linux WE'RE NEVER GOING OUT Randy | OF BUSINESS SALE by downloading an entire ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | operating system, apps, games, utilities, http://www.golgotha.net | and source code at http://www.debian.org
Re: DEB vs RPM
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
DEB vs RPM
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 always install RPM in our debian system. But my
concern is: Will it stuff up the dpkg system??
Any suggestions are appreciated...
Regards,
Shao
Shao Zhang \\/
5/28-30 Victoria AVE OxO
PENSHURST 2035 //\
Sydney, NSW ///\\
Australia\\\
/ ^ _ \
( (o) (o) )
* * *===oOOO=(_)=OOOo=*
* * *| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
* * | http://shaoz.dyn.ml.org |
* *** | http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~s2193893|
* * *===Oooo.=*
* * *.oooO ( |
* * * * *( ) ) /
* **\ ( (_/
\_)
Re: DEB vs RPM
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 non-i386 machines, source RPMs, libc5 + libc6 version of just about everything, etc. Also, the bigger part of these are not supported by Red Hat in any way. As such, I don't think this says more than there are a lot of .rpm files around. Now, do we have this number of deb packages?? The .deb count is probably somewhere in the 2000-2500 range (calculate from debian/dists/unstable/*/binary-i386/Packages.gz for precise numbers). Anyway, we can always install RPM in our debian system. But my concern is: Will it stuff up the dpkg system?? If you install it with rpm, in all likeliness, yes. If you use alien, probably not (unless it's an RPM of a critical system component). HTH, Ray -- Cyberspace, a final frontier. These are the voyages of my messages, on a lightspeed mission to explore strange new systems and to boldly go where no data has gone before.
Re: DEB vs RPM
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 10434 packages listed. jdassen AFAIK, this count include different versions, ports to non-i386 jdassen machines, source RPMs, libc5 + libc6 version of just about jdassen everything, etc. Also, the bigger part of these are not supported jdassen by Red Hat in any way. jdassen As such, I don't think this says more than there are a lot of .rpm jdassen files around. Indeed. Also, what we noticed was that the quality of the rpm's often varied considerably. Directory paths often changed drastically from one package to the other and other woes that stem from having just about anybody making up a RPM, then sticking them on a FTP server. The Debian system of having large numbers of individual maintainers makes for much better packages. -- Nicolai P Guba BT Labs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
