LWN: Comments on "Security advisories for Wednesday"

Fedora has dpkg. Debian has rpm. Nothing new here...

mathstuf — Mon, 18 May 2015 18:34:50 +0000

Debian is more restrictive about trademarks (see Iceweasel and friends).

Fedora has dpkg. Debian has rpm. Nothing new here...

pr1268 — Mon, 18 May 2015 11:25:00 +0000

Well, I was being facetious. But your comment had me thinking about how I've historically (past 10-15 years or so) thought of Debian as being the more restrictive distro in this regard.

I guess things aren't always what they seem...

Fedora has dpkg. Debian has rpm. Nothing new here...

rahulsundaram — Sun, 17 May 2015 16:46:44 +0000

Not quite. Fedora doesn't support third party kernel modules in the repository, no alternative init systems, no alternative libc etc. Some of it banned by policy. Others simply because noone has shown up with the interest and commitment to do the work involved but Debian repository tends to be more all encompassing than Fedora is and that is partly by design.

Fedora has dpkg. Debian has rpm. Nothing new here...

pr1268 — Sun, 17 May 2015 12:57:48 +0000

I suppose Fedora having dpkg is no more unusual than Debian having rpm—after all, they'd put the kitchen sink in either distro if someone made an .rpm or .deb for it. ;-)

Security advisories for Wednesday

imgx64 — Thu, 14 May 2015 09:01:33 +0000

Ah, I see. Makes sense.

Security advisories for Wednesday

mchapman — Thu, 14 May 2015 06:06:22 +0000

> Why does Fedora even have dpkg?

It's a dependent of "alien", the package format converter.

Security advisories for Wednesday

imgx64 — Thu, 14 May 2015 03:17:45 +0000

Why does Fedora even have dpkg? Can it actually install deb packages?