Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)
Posted May 3, 2011 18:39 UTC (Tue) by jond (subscriber, #37669)
I find the situation totally the opposite: I find building RPMs from source counter-intuitive and the rpmbuild defaults seem all wrong.
Posted May 3, 2011 20:01 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
Agreed about rpmbuild. I just use mock when building SRPMs for the most part.
Posted May 3, 2011 20:34 UTC (Tue) by pkern (subscriber, #32883)
But indeed the source format ties it together with the tarball instead of shipping the build instructions separately.
Posted May 17, 2011 20:54 UTC (Tue) by oak (guest, #2786)
Posted May 19, 2011 19:35 UTC (Thu) by oxan (guest, #75033)
Posted May 3, 2011 21:26 UTC (Tue) by kaeso (subscriber, #49701)
Posted May 3, 2011 21:49 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
<shameless-musing>Now if I only could find the OpenSuSE equivalent as well...no luck so far.</shameless-musing>
Posted May 3, 2011 23:27 UTC (Tue) by cowsandmilk (guest, #55475)
From there, you can drive down into the packages, just picking something random, you have https://build.opensuse.org/package/files?package=perl-JSO... where you can see the spec file, changelog, source, and diffs.
Posted May 4, 2011 1:27 UTC (Wed) by misc (subscriber, #73730)
That's a big postgresql db with all metadata on binary and sources rpms, and that include patch ( and patch contents most of the time ). But we didn't integrate opensuse source rpm for the moment, so this would not be useful for your usecase.
Posted May 4, 2011 14:51 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
Posted May 4, 2011 16:05 UTC (Wed) by misc (subscriber, #73730)
Posted May 4, 2011 12:48 UTC (Wed) by juliank (subscriber, #45896)
I guess you are confusing something. In RPM distros, the tarball and changes are all stuffed together in one giant .srpm, while in Debian, the upstream code and the packages are separated into two files.
Posted May 4, 2011 14:49 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
Posted May 4, 2011 2:52 UTC (Wed) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263)
If you thought rpm's choice for cpio (over tar) was weird, just wait until you see that deb produces a sadistic .tar.gz.a matroshka.
Posted May 4, 2011 8:21 UTC (Wed) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)
A deb package is technically gluing of two tarballs: "control" and "data". This gluing is done using an ar archive as ar is a very light-weight archive that adds very little overhead. Here is the content of that archive for some random package:
$ ar tv $PACKAGE.deb
rw-r--r-- 0/0 4 Apr 17 06:55 2011 debian-binary
rw-r--r-- 0/0 1975 Apr 17 06:55 2011 control.tar.gz
rw-r--r-- 0/0 73363 Apr 17 06:55 2011 data.tar.gz
$ ar p $PACKAGE.deb control.tar.gz | tar tzf -
$ ar p $PACKAGE.deb control.tar.gz | tar xOzf - ./control
Maintainer: CDBS Hackers <email@example.com>
Depends: debhelper (>= 5.0.30)
Description: common build system for Debian packages
This package contains the Common Debian Build System, an abstract build
system based on Makefile inheritance which is completely extensible and
overridable. In other words, CDBS provides a sane set of default rules
upon which packages can build; any or all rules may be overridden as
The rough equivalents of those in an rpm package is:
data.tar.gz is the cpio archive you mentioned. The metadata and the gluing in a deb package are done in a way that is at least accessible through standard shell tools. It was originally done with some custom dictionary and custom gluing as in RPM, but later on they preferred to use a more standard method.
I'm sure there are some merits to the rpm format. It's just that your criticism is wrong.
Posted May 5, 2011 17:18 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (guest, #4458)
Using cpio (one standard format) instead of tar (each version has its own quirks) is sane...
Posted May 6, 2011 1:10 UTC (Fri) by lindahl (guest, #15266)
Posted May 6, 2011 4:58 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds