Re: deb vs. rpm
Hi!
> No, RPM has nothing like APT. If you have any dependency problems,
> misconfigured packages, etc, one "apt-get -f install" will fix it. I
> can set up an /etc/apt/sources.list file that points to two different
> FTP sites and APT will automagically download any package I tell it to
> and all of the dependencies. Want to upgrade to the latest stuff
> in unstable? Just run "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade". FTP
> installation/update with RedHat is a pain, probably b/c their main
> economic goal is to sell more CDs. Personally, I've been using Debian
> for several years and have never bought a CD. I've gone from waiting
> 4 hours on a 64K ISDN line to waiting about 30 minutes on a 10MB cable
> modem.
So if I understand you and others who have replied correctly, the
main advantage is the automatic dep-resolustion via ftp.
But it seems to me that this has nothing to do with the deb format
itself. Instead it is something that results out of Debian making
better use of the features of the packageformat.
I guess you could write a program like apt-get for rpm too.
As I see it after reading the comparison at
<http://kitenet.net/~joey/pkg-comp.html>
the rpm format is comparible with the dep format feature-wise.
Rpm is even ahead in some (IMHO important) areas like
file-dependencies whereas dep only supports package deps.
The area in which dep is better in an important area is
recommendations/suggestions.
So maybe RedHat (and others) only do not make use of the features
that rpm offers, while dep-Packagers do.
Also with deps you can be sure that they are comptible with your
Debian system, something not the case with rpms.
Am I missing someting here?
TIA
Thorsten Manegold
Reply to: