[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian vs Red Hat??? I need info.



On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 07:07:00PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> > I must say, my subjective experience has been that rpm's are much faster
> > to install something.  Of course, it's also faster to throw my clothes
> > on the floor, rather than put them in the hamper...
> 
> That is a result of the fact that rpm uses a binary database for its
> data, while dpkg uses a large number of text-files instead. The
> advantage of that is that it is robust (if a single file gets corrupted
> it's not much of a problem), and that it is possible to fix or modify
> things by hand using a normal text editor if needed.

this is a tremendous advantage of dpkg, it should never be changed to
use a binary database.  the human readable/editable dpkg database has
saved me from having to reinstall a system from scratch when the /var
partition was destroyed and had to be restored with a slightly out of
date backup.  dpkg was broken due to the inconsistent databases but it
only took a little bit of editing to fix it.

redhat dists on the other hand are said to be un-upgradable because the
binary databases become corrupted so easy.  (see archives of the
linux-config mailing list for this) 

> Apt uses a mixed approach: it uses the same textfiles as dpkg but
> uses a binary cache to also get the advantages of a binary database.

it does?  where?

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

Attachment: pgp6cEtgkiKO4.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: