Well I have to agree on this one to a large extent. RPMs can be a real pain. However, once you get the hang of them, they are easier than installing from source.
I seldom have problems with RPMs 'not installing right'. As far as conflicts go, the key is in understanding the output. There are a number of problems that can cause a conflict and the output of the rpm command can be very cryptic at times. Unsatisfied dependencies are often expressed in terms of a particular missing file rather than a missing package. Then how does one go about finding out which package contains the needed file? I do it by searching for info on the web, but not all users are going to be that up to speed on web search techniques. At other times one encounters archane interdependencies. For example, an essential component gets broken off from KDE. Now KDE suddenly needs that component in order to be upgraded. When you go to install that component, you of course end up with a conflict because it is already part of the current KDE. The solution of course is 'rpm -U <new kde package> <new component package>'. But this software jigsaw puzzle can be extremely confusing to the novice. I think that the solution is not so much throwing RPM out, but rather enhancing RPM to deal with these circumstances. The packaging people need to think whenever they make a new package: 'How will this impact the user?' and 'How can we come up with a solution that will mitigate the potential impact on the user?' One thing I would like to suggest is the inclusion of a dynamic comment field to be included in the package. When an rpm fails for any reason, this comment field would appear in the output. Cooker testers would have some easy way to contribute to these comment fields. In most cases a few comments like: 'Try rpm -U <package A> <package B>' or 'Be sure to install <package X> if it is not already installed' or 'Remove <package Z> before installing' could go a long way toward solving these problems. Of course the long term solution would be a 'smarter' rpm that could ferret out an solve these problems on its own. George Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mark D'voo wrote: > I would just like to state that mandrake is the best distribution of linux > and the best operating system known to man. It has a major problem. > RPMS!!! rpms suck. they never install right, everything conflicts, and i > have to install everything from source which isn't easy for a newbie. > Mandrake is still known as a redhat rip-off which is because it uses rpms. I > think mandrake needs to develop their own packaging system. Hopefully > mandrake would be able to come up with something better than rpms and debs > (since they aren't much better). If they could sucessfully do this, i > believe it would really help out mandrake. It would not longer be a redhat > rip-off instead other distros would use mandrakes installing system, and > they'd be mandrake rip-offs. > > mark
