|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Improving .deb

Improving .deb

Posted May 31, 2019 2:18 UTC (Fri) by wahern (subscriber, #37304)
In reply to: Improving .deb by bojan
Parent article: Improving .deb

Yes, RPM is manifestly serviceable. But my experience comes not as a user but as a packager. It's been over a year since I last had to package using RPM and have mostly tried to put it all behind me. Suffice it to say that the only thing the RPM format and RPM tooling has going for it is that from a distance it looks enticing--simpler, cleaner, more convenient. It's none of those things when you get up close, though. And don't get me started on Yum/DNF....

> Who would have thought that a package format that is 22 years old would be like that. :-)

Debian package users! The Debian package format is old and wrinkly, but it has aged incredibly well in terms of forethought and capabilities. The tooling is more complex but that's because the ecosystem is layered. Many of the biggest headaches in the land of Yum and RPM (sections, macros, file contents, dependencies, building, ...) are insurmountable and force everybody and everything to accommodate the limitations. (Ignorance is bliss, though!) For every headache one can identify in the land of .debs and Apt there are *both* dirty hacks and clean changes in approach that resolve them; rarely are you stopped in your tracks with the realization you simply cannot accomplish something functionally.

IMO the Debian packaging ecosystem continues to evolve and improve. There are improvements to the RPM ecosystem, but they asymptotically move RPM toward a wall.

Detailing all the issues here would be impractical (and I don't have the memory for it, only the scars), but if you have time carefully go through the history of the development of Modularity (you may need to use Wayback Machine to see how the project specifications changed) and you'll see how RedHat had to backtrack and literally reinvent Modularity late in the RHEL8 development cycle after they realized they couldn't surmount various limitations to RPM, particularly with regards to build-time and run-time dependency management. I remember a co-worker raving about how awesome it would be and me being incredulous that they could pull it off, and lo-and-behold it turned out that they couldn't.


to post comments

Improving .deb

Posted May 31, 2019 4:20 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

I use rpm as both a user and a packager. Are there issues? Sure, sometimes. Do things generally work? Yep.

So, I have no idea why folks go on these long rants to point out how everything Debian has an almost saint like quality and everything else is pure junk. The fact is that both systems are in widespread use and they work, each with their own limitations.


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds