On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Bryan Paxton wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Jose M. Sanchez wrote:
[...]
> > |2). opts ? optimization aren't handled by RPM, they're handled by
> > |gcc(e.g.: -march=i586)
> > |Rebuilding a SRPM with --target= is almost useless in the
> > |situations I've encountered, ala it never works : )
> > |
> >
> > Probably due to your insistence on mixing distros...
> >
> heh no, snag say glibc*.srpm && rpm --rebuild --target=whatever
> watch the gcc flags....
Don't say that deb is able to do it.
Faulty logic.
(As I already mentioned in my environment with my own srpms I can specify
"--target=i[3456]86|k6|noarch|m68k" and in case of "m68k" my intel box
makes rpms for Linux/m68k.)
> RPM server is nothing but a security hole and a slew of exploits waiting to
> happen, why do you think noone uses it ?
Do you actually believe yourself in what'ya saying?
I can show you a lot of "noone"s, can you show me a rpm security hole which
touches the security of the server it runs on?
> > |> > rpm -Uvh gnome-libs-1.2.1-2mdk.alpha.rpm> > error: failed dependencies:
> > |> > libart_lgpl.so.2 is needed by ee-0.3.11-5mdk
> > |> > libart_lgpl.so.2 is needed by libglade-0.13-1mdk
> > |> > libart_lgpl.so.2 is needed by gnome-media-1.0.51-3mdk
> > |> > libart_lgpl.so.2 is needed by gnome-linuxconf-0.23-2mdk
> > |> > libart_lgpl.so.2 is needed by gtop-1.0.7-0.4mdk
> > |> > libart_lgpl.so.2 is needed by gnomba-0.6.2-4mdk
[...]
> > What's wrong with this?
> >
> > RPM is warning you that you are about to affect the other packages listed...
> >
> You by far missed the point on this one.....
> The warning message does not display what package lib* is part of and what
> you are breaking. Though this is due to poor spec maintaining I assume.
*You* missed the point.
You *can* check the requires *before* installing with
rpm -qp xyz.rpm --requires
and if a capability is missing you can check it with
rpm -q --whatprovides libc.so.6
It seems that you don't know the basics of rpm and I'm pretty sure that you
have never built a rpm of your own and don't know anything of rpm interna.
"rpm --help" helps a lot.
> --forces are every day life for 99.9% of all users using an RPM based distro.
True b.s. (sorry)
100% of these guys are kinda Windoze users who don't RTFM, huh?
To use simple words:
If you use "--force" in every day life then the error is *You*.
You must not use it in every day life.
> Go to an irc newbies channel and count how many people come in with these
> problems. This again can also be traced back to poor maintaining of spec files.
As you said: newbies
Give these newbies some deb-packages and they blow away their system.
[...]
> echo "Let's stay in the stone age"
Stick to facts.
[...]
> > Gimp goes to 2.0 which requires a slew of updates. Those updates in turn
> > "break" other applications on your system.
> >
> > With DEB you can go ahead and install GIMP 2, breaking the other apps.
> It sounds like you haven't played with dist upgrades a lot.
Your statements sound like *you* haven't played with rpm a lot.
> WARNING messages are given if one package will break another.
As rpm in your example also did.
[...]
> > Faulty logic.
> >
> > You're implying that DEB is unaffected by upgrade downtime... not so.
> >
> Sorry, I've never had to or seen a box taken off line during a dist upgrade.
Faulty logic: Have you ever seen a box during a dist upgrade? ;-)
> > Again faulty logic.
> > The assumption is that Deb is immune for trouble during upgrades...
> > Since it monitors them far less than RPM it is more trouble prone...
> >
> > This is why you are able to install so many .deb files in what you call
> > heaven.
> >
> Every package management system as of now as it's goods and bads, I've never
> had a problem with dpkg/apt, though I have had to help remedy situations where
As Jose wrote: You had luck!
> an upgrade did break something(perl) on the system. Fact goes without saying
> that this can and does happen in mdk as well, this box is living proof of
> upgrade from 6.1 to 7.0. the difference here is I was able to salavage the deb
> box and not the mdk box, I had to go back in and do a complete re-install.
Faulty logic (;-) ): You couldn't do the job and now you accuse rpm?
> The rest of your post was poor flame and I ignore it : )
Shame on all of us. But it was funny.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lieber lachende Pinguine als tanzende Bueroklammern
Sending unsolicited commercial email to this address may be a violation
of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW.
Das Verschicken unverlangter kommerzieller email an diese Adresse ist
verboten (LG Traunstein, 2 HK O 3755/97 vom 14.10.1997, CR 1998, 171f).
(Frank Meurer, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PGP ID: 0x5E756DA8)
