On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:31:34 PDT
Mauro Mozzarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > NO,NO,NO Please don't !!!!!
> > rpm is bad idea on any planet.
> > THis is not Linux.
> Please, could you expand on your statement? Why would it be a bad idea?
> To me, it would solve most of the problems we have today with OpenSolaris on
> having to create redundant sub-installations of most of the operating system
> dependencies, only to install a package like, for example, "mplayer" from
> blastwave.
No, it wouldn't have. That's not a problem with the package format,
that's a problem with having two repositories maintained by different
groups. You see the same thing on the Mac, where both macports and
fink tend to install large sets of redundant software.
Early in the rpm days - before each systems repository had gotten to
be a respectable size - you ran into a much worse problem generally
referred to as "rpm hell", which was closely related to Windows "dll
hell": you wanted to install foo, which had dependency bar version
1.2, except you had bar 1.1 installed, and had half-a-dozen things
that wouldn't required it, and the different bars needed different
baz's, and so on. Going to redundant installs for the multiple
repositories solved that.
This problem still exists today if you want up-to-date tools on
slightly outdated distros (such as you get when dealing with large
corporations that insist on only using distros their IT & security
people have had time to audit) - the tool vendors will put up rpms
built against whatever, but if whatever doesn't match your base, the
binaries are worthless.
More on the next rock.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
