Hi, On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 12:07:26PM -0400, Aaron S. Hawley wrote: > > It really depends on who you ask. [...] > > It could be the case that more sysadmins use RPM-based distros. > Another historical reason you could have mentioned is the likely > scenario where people had to figure out the RPM tools because they > wanted to install a package that wasn't available. > > > My experience is that Debian and Debian-based distros tend to be used by > > experienced sysadmins who manage their *own* (i.e., corporate LANs, or > > corporate, non-hosted web farms) networks of machines. Having managed > > both RPM and DEB based systems myself, I have a personal preference for > > DEB -- apt-get and aptitude are light years ahead of up2date and yum, > > and I have yet to have an issue with dependencies I couldn't easily > > resolve. RPM, on the other hand, causes me no end of issues every single > > time I touch it it seems. > > This sounds like the "misconception", again. Also, I take your > response as a "No", you haven't used dpkg to do what's described at > <http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-debpkg.html> or > <http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/> or > <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide>" You've only used the > frontends.
I've created .debs and used dpkg extensively. When you say cumbersome, I assume you are refering to the process of creating .debs. dpkg works much like rpm for installing a single package with no APT/yum/whatever. The .debs contain all of the dependency information. APT just adds a layer of automation to install those dependencies from a repository (note that this is a gross oversimplification). -Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net http://www.pytagsfs.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
