On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:08:04AM +0200, Martin F. Krafft wrote: [...] > with redhat (come on, they are walking micro$oft footsteps), DEB is > very powerful and can easily exist by itself. a little > cross-compatibility is needed, but rather than surrendering and > converting to RPM, it should be the community's goal to establish DEB > at least to be a second standard, causing vendors and distributors to > package with DEB as well as RPM. In my personal experience the worst problem with RPM IS (nowadays perhaps WAS) that several Vendors use the same Packaging system but with different interpretations. When I used SuSE (long ago, 5.0) it was not possible to install a Redhat RPM with SuSE RPM, or vice versa. The problem was that dependencies could not be resolved properly, something like "SuSE-RPM-Package depends on libXY, so you can't install it on Redhat which has the right library installed but calls ist lib-XY". Of course you could force installation and it would (probably) work, but why should I use a Packaging-System if it can't resolve dependencies? The point I try to make is this: I don't know the internals of rpm and deb, but in my experience SuSE-rpm doesn't equal Redhat-rpm while deb is always Debian-deb. So IMHO the bigges advantage of deb is this "No one but Debian is using it, so all debs will work with debian." Just because one uses RPM doesn't mean you can make one RPM for all distribution. IMHO this asumption doesn't hold. And as a result I don't see an advantage of abandoning deb in the long-term, as it has been hinted at. Just my 2 cent. -- CU, Patrick. "Never run on auto-pilot" - The Pragmatic Programmer
Attachment:
pgpfmIw5_fG9s.pgp
Description: PGP signature