| |||||||||||||
DEB compared with RPMDEB compared with RPMPosted Feb 21, 2007 20:47 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)In reply to: DEB compared with RPM by pizza Parent article: ESR's goodbye note "pizza" wrote: Please, compare apples to apples. If you want to critique RH/Fedora's past packaging policies vs Debian's, fine. Well said, sir. In my view (as well), people making handwaving claims about merits of these two perfectly serviceable package formats should be gently lead to Joey Hess's indispensible "Comparing Linux/UNIX Binary Package Formats" page, and advised to please make certain their comments are informed ones. Rick Moen
(Log in to post comments)
DEB compared with RPM Posted Feb 21, 2007 21:43 UTC (Wed) by midg3t (subscriber, #30998) [Link] That page is at http://kitenet.net/~joey/pkg-comp/
DEB compared with RPM Posted Feb 21, 2007 22:05 UTC (Wed) by mheily (guest, #27123) [Link] I should have said 'package build system' instead of 'package format' in my earlier comment, because the two formats *are* similar at the low level of detail that Joey Hess is talking about. They both contain a collection of files that can be installed and uninstalled, and contain scripts that run during the install and uninstall process.
The point I was trying to make is that the mechanism for defining and creating a DEB package is superior to the mechanism for defining and creating an RPM package. This is part of the reason why Debian packages are 'better' than RPM packages; the power and flexibility of the build system allows you to design better packages with less effort, which makes the end user's life (and now ESR's life, apparently) easier.
DEB compared with RPM Posted Feb 22, 2007 16:28 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] > The point I was trying to make is that the mechanism for defining and creating a DEB package is superior to the mechanism for defining and creating an RPM package. This is part of the reason why Debian packages are 'better' than RPM packages; the power and flexibility of the build system allows you to design better packages with less effort, which makes the end user's life (and now ESR's life, apparently) easier.
There is no (major) technical reason why Debian couldn't switch to RPM, or Fedora switch to DPKG as the packaging format.
"Fedora on dpkg" will be indistinguishable from the current "Fedora on rpm". Likewise, "Debian on rpm" would be indistinguishable from the current "Debian on dpkg". As there is no technical benefit to doing so, there's no point in wasting everyone's time for a non-feature.
The "end-user's life" is "easier" precisely because of Debian's packaging policies. While the tools may have features to help facilitate said policies, the policies drive the tools, not the other way around.
Both Fedora's and Debian's strengths (and weaknesses!) lie in their policies, not their tools. Both distributions still have different goals, and their policies reflect those goals.
Joey Hess Posted Feb 21, 2007 22:12 UTC (Wed) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link] "Some people consider file depend[e]ncies a gross misfeature." But he doesn't explain why...
how file dependencies can get you in trouble Posted Feb 21, 2007 22:42 UTC (Wed) by branden (subscriber, #7029) [Link] Having a file dependency on /usr/bin/make when you're going to rely on GNU extensions to Make (and there are several), is a bad idea.
An even better example is when file objects have the same name but are completely different applications. Think of firebird, for example.
how file dependencies can get you in trouble Posted Feb 22, 2007 5:44 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] That's why you can specify explicit packages, if required.
File dependencies Posted Feb 22, 2007 0:40 UTC (Thu) by midg3t (subscriber, #30998) [Link] Searching the package namespace for a dependency is much more efficient than searching through the file list of every package. More importantly, as mentioned by branden, it allows automated dependency resolution to install the right package.
File dependencies Posted Feb 22, 2007 15:55 UTC (Thu) by macc (subscriber, #510) [Link] There are subtle differencesbetween forex RedHat and SuSE as to how packages are named and partitioned.
|
|||||||||||||