On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:03:20 +1100 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 5 Mar, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Damn, now to patch those Redhat sendmail boxes... I only get time > > at 1am to do this crap. dpkg's apt is much easier then rpms, damn > > dependancies!
That really is an unfair comparison. Comparing dpkg to rpm would be an interesting exercise, but I don't think I've yet seen a thorough, even-handed review of them. I've only had minor contact with up2date, and that was slightly unpleasant. But I hear it works fairly well, as does apt-rpm. In my uninformed and mildly biased opinion, that levels the playing field quite a bit. I just think debian wins out in its adherence to strict packaging policies. It still wins because it has an official repository of official packages, and you know that everything in that repository is going to work in similar, well-thought-out and sane ways. > I liked the way it silently wiped out my modified /etc/mail/Makefile. I last checked late this afternoon, and debian stil didn't have official packages for my distribution. So most of my afternoon and evening was spent patching a source package, building a binary, and pushing it out to the boxes I manage. I had to manually tell dpkg not to recreate sendmail.cf, otherwise it would also wipe out my custom /etc/mail/Makefile. Yeah, I pretty much use debian exlusively. But I don't see why it should be compared with anything else on an uneven footing. -- Pete -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
