Re: RPM (Was Re: Deity project schedule problems)
On 23 Sep 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> Your sentiment is reasonable, your evidence is weak...
>
> For example:
> >Some examples of packages that we've developed that probably would never
> >have happened if we used RPM:
> > dpkg-ftp, dpkg-mountable, dpkg-cert, dpkg-perl, dpkg-python,
> > debmake, debhelper, alien, dftp, dpkg-repack, dpkg-cross, menu,
> > fakeroot, suidmanager, cvs-buildpackage, kernel-package
>
> rpm includes dpkg-ftp as base functionality (package names are url's :-)
> dpkg-cert, if I understand it, is rpm --verify. alien is meaningless
> when the formats are the same. dpkg-perl: I think there *are* rpm::
> modules in CPAN. as for fakeroot: rpm handles it by letting normal
> users build, and then having a "cleanup permissions" stage at install
> time; crude, but effective, and done a *long* time ago. dpkg-repack
> doesn't seem to have an equivalent (though I've never had a *good*
> reason to use it, only some bad ones) and suidmanager is debatable as
> well, *especially* without things like rpm --setperms, which actually
> lets you make the installed permissions match the package...
>
> So, sure they wouldn't have happenned -- because rpm *already* handles
> them. Of course I don't know the history here -- but *do* try to be
> more aware of what rpm is actually capable of, and argue *that*.
All right, those are good features of rpm, not of RPM (the program, not
the package format), right? Perhaps it would be nice to merge some
of our tiny utilities into dpkg, perhaps not, we should discuss it...
OTOH, the package format is more cryptic than debs, and less powerful,
and that is the main problem involved. If we switch to RPM, we loss
some power and a lot of time (it's a hard work to go there), to be
able to use their tools (no point in doing a better RPM if others won't
adopt it) but, do we gain that much using those tools, that can not be
easily added to our current ones?
> I think the specs file is *more* flexible than anything in
> debian... *too much* more flexible, if anything, and not *enough*
> structure.
Uh? These are late news for me. I've always thought it was a lot
more rigid than our rules+scripts approach. I should go again reading
about RPM specs.
Thanks,
--
Enrique Zanardi ezanardi@ull.es
Dpto. Fisica Fundamental y Experimental Univ. de La Laguna
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: