On Fri, October 7, 2005 5:49 pm, Richard Tindall said: > There must be a lesson in here for us all.. > > Steve Holdoway wrote: > >>RedHat is pretty long in the tooth now... although the CentOS offerings >> of >>RHEL are fine. However, if you're using apt to install, it may be a >> better >>idea to use a debian-based distro. >> > I'm struggling with the logic of the particular situation Ant faced > getting started with midi support. > > How is it http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/ are providing > an apt kernel install system for RedHat? Has that come from a > half-informed approach to Linux, or do they set out to break ('modify') > the O/S intentionally?
Rik, apt-rpm has been out for years. Connectiva added apt functionality to rpm years ago. It works well. Stop spreading fud. > > From what I've learned in just a few years, adding apt would be a > pretty risky way to deal with an rpm-built system, because the original > package log will thereafter be compromised. Am I correct in likening > this kernel update method to installing a log-burner in your house by > using a bulldozer? Steve has pointed to where apt is already used, and > safer, but ccrma's kernel is for RH/Fedora only. > > Ah.., http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net says "Apt4rpm.. Analyzes the rpm > packages in the rpm repository and creates a unified rpm package name. > This mechanism uses caching to speed up the creation of subsequent > created apt, yum or metadata repositories. The rpm name, version and > architecture are stored seperately in the cache. This makes it possible > to easily search for 1 particular rpm throughout the whole apt > repository." ..So that means it's a permanent upgrade to the RedHat > packaging system, which it breaks? Empowering for geeks but scary for > newbies, who lose the ability to point, click & install software > consistently from rpm icons thereafter. > > I am happy to stand corrected. But until then I will share my > rudimentary gleaning for all those seeking to follow the snow-swept > mountain pass thru to Linuxville: > > New User Rule #1: > > For extended useability of your Linux platform, maintain the integrity > of your chosen distribution[2]'s packaging subsystem _at all costs_. Rik, it is still rpm, apt-rpm is to rpm what apt on debian is to .deb. > > 2. The packaging subsystem you must stick with therefore has high > priority in making your choice of distro, alongside range of software > available for it, and speedy availability of the latest upgrades, etc. > > [The last two aspects are not important for my pedestrian computing > needs, whereas system stability is, on top of ease of software addition > & update. - Just so people know how I've reached my post-newbie distro > choice (Ubuntu).] > > To conclude, Lance has echoed Robert in misattributing Slashdot talk to > me (by stripping the quote marks), and confusing the packaging system > choice with narrowness about distros. This explains why, despite wanting > to disagree, Lance has recommended some apt-based distros, as do I (for > non-experts). > > </pedantry></vocalmode> > > hth, > > Rik >
