On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Frank Meurer wrote:
> 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.)
This isn't faulty logic, it's fact because I have done it and it still compiled
for i586. This is due to poor maintaining of spec files hopefully.
> > 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?
yes I do believe what your saying, I suppose you think remote linuxconf is safe
as well huh ?
> > > |> > 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.
Ahhh man, you got me all pegged out huh ?
I won't even comment on most of this. I will comment on your 'rpm -qp xyz.rpm
--requires'. Why on earth would I want to do this ? Why, it's friggin silly
when a code change in RPM and/or spec files can blatantly tell me what the
package needs and/or breaks. Sorry, your argument is of poor taste.
>
> > --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.
Stick to the facts ? These are the facts, these are every day people using rpm.
Or do the people who the software not count ? heh
> [...]
> > > 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? ;-)
Yeah, PII-300, I was able to still play around in X and fire up netscape.
> > > 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!
I don't believe it was luck at all.
>
> > 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?
I could have done the job hand by hand(e.g.: downloading every single RPM and
installing them one at a time). But why the hell would I wanna do that ?
I mean if I'm gonna do that I might as well compile everything from source.
Please get your counter-attacks straight.
> > The rest of your post was poor flame and I ignore it : )
> Shame on all of us. But it was funny.
_us_ ? You're the only idget who has tried to flame, with no valid
counter-points. Now only did you turn a logical topic into a flame war, but you
have also made my ignore list :)
P.S.: It's best not to make assumptions about people you don't know, you never
know who you're talking to : )
--
Bryan Paxton
"How should I know if it works? That's what beta testers are for. I
only coded it."
-- Linus Torvalds.
Public key can be found at http://speedbros.org/Bryan_Paxton.asc
