Re: Proposal: Source file package format (summary)
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, aphro wrote:
> On 30 Dec 1999, Nick Moffitt wrote:
>
> nick >Quoting Svante Signell:
> nick >> - rpm format to be used for binary packages in LSB.
> nick >
> nick > I beg your pardon?
>
> RPM is one of the biggest pieces of crap ive seen..i spent 20 minutes
> working on a redhat5.1 machine(from telnet) and it about drove me MAD, i
> never appreciated how well dpkg/apt and even the distribution
> (debian) being so organized into sections until i saw how redhat did it,
> ALL IN ONE DIRECTORY.
>
> rpm was a nice step from .tgz packages but it is the last thing that
> should be used for distributions in the future. my opinion at least.
>
> that machine i worked 20 minutes on i told the guy to wipe it out and
> install slink, i had his firewall, proxy, ipmasq, DNS, and X configured as
> well as his machine secured in about 2 hours(that includes downloading
> some missing packages off the net over 56k) redhat would of taken me
> days..argh who could use a system like that..
>
Big problem is getting guys like LSB to buy the .deb format. I haven't
researched it, but even guys on the Red Hat list say it's better.
There are two really horrible things about Debian, though. 1) The dselect
package handler. I'm speaking from Debian 2.1 here. It has a very
primitive interface and is incredibly tedious. Maybe they're doing
something different in potato. 2) Lack of admin tools like Linuxconf. This
seems to be the best tool out there for system admin. Not that it's
perfect, but I don't know of any analog for it on Debian.
Paul M. Foster
Reply to: