+1 here, I just don't want to spend time writing about yum. On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Chris Louden <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Chris Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not too familiar with apt-get and deb packages. In your opinion, why > is it superior to yum and rpm packages? > > > > Chris > > Well Yum was copied from apt-get. Not directly. Perhaps inspired by > would be more fitting. They do not share a code base that I am aware > of. Personally I feel that Yums dependency resolution abilities are > not as good as apt-get. Which has more to do with the package and > repository maintainers then actually Yum or rpm. However the real > selling point for me is not really something that apt does but > something that .deb/dpkg allows for that Yum and .rpm do not. At least > the last time I spent some decent time with a RH based distro. > > The .rpm format has a weaknesses (IMHO) regarding > pre/post/upgrade/remove/install scripts. They basically suck when > compared to .deb. Being able to apt-get a package and configure it > during the install process rather then having to edit a file or files > afterward is a huge benefit to me. Maybe not to you. As well when you > remove a package or upgrade it cleans up nicely after itself. Saves a > massive amount of time for an admin. I complain about Ubuntu and > Debian .deb packages not putting files in the same place. However > generally speaking they work for one another. So if a package is not > available in one but is in the other I can probably get it to work > with minimal effort. A few symbolic links generally or I just move the > files. > > Another big problem I had in the past with .rpm was trying to find > them (Yum does resolve that now for the most part) and also > determining if they were compatible as far as distro and version and > dependencies. With the exception of RHEL/CentOS I have not had much > luck with getting packages that work in one version of Fedora to work > in another. Keep in mind I just took my last RH based (fedora core 2) > VPS off line moving everything to my dedicated Debian server. Hardly > ever upgrading it due to the hassles. Debian dist-upgrade ability damn > near flawless in its execution in my experience. > > The very first time someone showed me apt-get and that it not only > resolved dependencies but it prompted for config settings as the > package was installed blew my mind. I was using RH 6.x 7.x at the > time. So it was like 98/99 ish. It was one of those moments like in > the movies when you hear the angels singing. I believe it was pretty > complex at the time. Maybe 8 or 9 packages which had hundreds of > dependencies. I do remember it included x-window-system and it was > Debian Potato when it was still in testing status. > > I will bash on rpm at the drop of a hat. Any hat. Beanies too.However > it does have a feature .deb does not. Although I've never made use of > it. > > You can roll back packages to previous versions and or times, if > installed with the "--repackage" flag. It does take up lots of space > though, because when installing a new version of some packages the old > package is stored in /var/spool/repackage. > > DPKG does not have this feature, nor does apt-get. Synaptic a GUI > front end for apt might. You can use DPKG to downgrade a package using > the previous .deb file. If you didn't have the previous package you > couldn't do it. However if the upgrade removed any files that were no > longer required the downgrade would not correct the dependencies. You > would have to use apt to correct this and to avoid the dependency > issues. Which is something that apt can do quite easily. I don't think > I'd like DPKG to handle a downgrade anyways, I'd rather do it though > apt if there was a choice. > > While .deb it is considerably superior to .rpm (personal opinion), > .deb/apt-get still does have room for improvement. First thing is it > still needs better logging. All installation information, good and bad > should be logged somewhere for as long as the package is installed. > Reverting to a previous version would be second. > > Chris > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: "Roger E. Rustad, Jr" <[email protected]> > > To: SoCal LUG Users List <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:59:32 PM > > Subject: Re: [LinuxUsers] Fedora Back On Track > > > > Lemme guess -- they've revamped yum and rpms to be as cool as > apt-get/deb. > > > > No? > > > > <insert snarky comment about RH-based distros HERE> > > > > Chris Thomas wrote: > >> After they had some of their infrastructure compromised, the Fedora > project re-did all their update packages and signed them with a new key. The > updates are now available. > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2008-September/msg00007.html > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> LinuxUsers mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LinuxUsers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LinuxUsers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers > > > _______________________________________________ > LinuxUsers mailing list > [email protected] > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers >
