On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 at 07:15, Horatio B. Bogbindero wrote:
> >sorry. but doc mana seems to be inclined to the .tar.gz format. slakware
> >style.
> This question is particularly for Doc Mana. Why?
I have nothing against the RPM packaging system -- I think this is
extremely good, with package dependencies automatically determined.
The system will not allow a package to be installed unless all
prerequisites are already there. My complaint is the way RedHat
has chosen the granularity of their rpm packages and their install
system. It is difficult to install a "lean" RedHat system. The
choice of granularity determines the degree of dependencies of the
granules. RedHat granules have too much dependencies on each other.
If admulinux were rpm, then I have to follow the granularity of
RedHat, and I have to study the dependencies of their granules.
I would have preferred admulinux to have a pre-install script
that checks dependencies, and sets up a "clean" environment
before the tarball is untarred. I could actually do this if I
distribute each package as two files: a pre-install script, and the
actual tarball. I have decided to settle for a post-install script
that is run after each tarball is unpacked. This is not as
good, but for the meantime, this will do.
> I hope I'm not causing any war. I particularly prefer package managers,
> for the management of installed software. Whether I have to roll out my
> own or whether they're available is not so much the issue here. I want to
> know what Doc Mana has for tarballs.
Tarballs are the simplest ways to distribute packages. The tar and gzip
programs are universally available and so your packages will install
on a system which has these. Whereas, rpms will install properly only
on systems that have rpm, and whose dependency trees mimic those of
RedHat.
PMana
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
