On Fri 05 Jan 2007 21:33:44 NZDT +1300, Andrew Packer wrote:

> Decided to update logcabin from FC 4 to Ubuntu 6.06 to be consistent
> with our other machines.  Result: Ubuntu repartitioned the (SATA) disk
> but then couldn't recognise any of the partitions.

> Now FC 6 boots but X doesn't.  I have to login as myself, su - to root,
> rm a lock file, exit to myself, startx and we're happy for a while.  The
> system runs with the vesa generic driver; the graphical display
> adjustment tool shows the existence of the Intel (on-board 945GM) driver
> but won't install it (but would, apparently, install it for a second
> display - ???).  Otherwise all's well until shutdown looms - at log-out
> I just don't get the option of shutting down, and even if I exit to a
> shell and invoke shutdown now, the power stays on.  

> I miss dpkg, apt-get and synaptic!

And that would guarantee to give you a working system? That's naive.
Just look at your Ubuntu. ;)

Even if one assumes for a momement, and without reason, that the
packaging system (installation, verification, search, dependency
resolution, security etc) works fine, it is obvious that it does nothing
to ensure the software installed by the packages actually works as you
want it to, or even as intended. It's only the Debianists who spread
that confusion. Having a good deal of first-hand experience with
dpkg&Co, I can say that dependency resolution works well, handling
multiple repositories works well, a source package format is simply
non-existant, package verification is cumbersome for package files and
non-existant after the package is installed, and searching had some
absent feature(s) (have to check my notes here). Overall it doesn't beat
rpm&Co, which has very good package formats and verification before and
after installation. Dependency resolution is a "depends". Works
extremely well on SUSE if you stay within distro and use the
distro-supplied tools. Works well in general if you use tools like yum,
smart or whatever else. Success with third-party package repositories
has not much to do with dpkg&Co vs rpm&Co and a lot to do with how well
the packages in the repository are matched to the distro which you're
trying to force-feed them into. If you stay with Redhat-based distros
you won't have any more trouble with Redhat-based package repositories
than you have with Debian-based distros and Debian repositories (and I
had a lot of trouble with the Debian side there too - in fact I can't
spot any difference). However, there are quite a few rpm-based distros
which are not Redhat-based, whereas all the common dpkg-based distros
are Debian based. Which means two things: 1) The perceived lack of
trouble with package handling is hardly due to dpkg, but to the
Einheitsbrei[1] of parts put together, 2) If I am looking for a good
distro, the dpkg-based ones have a few new applications and some good
ideas on a foundation which is evolution-arrested in 1996. Which is very
unfortunate (though can be an advantage on systems with 32MB of memory).

Oh and package building is a pain times two however way I look at it
because source code is so un-uniform, requiring a very individual set of
steps to knock it into binary installed. And the first thing you have to
do regardless of packaging format is to find a fully automated (i.e.
shell script) way of making make + make install work. Which takes 95% of
the time.

Your FC6 problems wouldn't be solved by dpkg. "FC6 is buggy, therefore
rpm is cr*p" deserves no further comment. The Intel 945 graphics
concoction is a major pain in the rear across all things Linux right
now. I didn't follow the solutions, if any, as I don't have the hardware
(thank goodness). No doubt that'll be solved in time, as that chip seems
to be very popular now. For now, google a lot, and post a summary (in
new thread). I have a box now too where the power stays on after
shutdown, though the disk is turned off. The box has possibly a buggy
bios anyway, though it was working before I upgraded to kernel 2.6.18.
These things are apm/acpi related, and construction of PC hardware in
that department is a bane for any software which hasn't been cludged up
by the mobo/bios manufacturer. As such, it is likely kernel dependent,
as well as dependent on the kernel mods made by $DISTRO. Play with your
bios settings as well as kernel options in the acpi area. Use google,
though don't expect success.

HTH,

Volker (who'll leave his computer alone until the weather packs up)

-- 
Volker Kuhlmann                 is list0570 with the domain in header
http://volker.dnsalias.net/     Please do not CC list postings to me.

Reply via email to