[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Package management.
- From: Audioslave - 7M3 - Live <creed7m3live columbus rr com>
- To: phoebe-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: Package management.
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:20:51 -0500
Marcus Leonard wrote:
> Forgive me if this has been discussed in detail before; I'm new to
> this list, so I've been going through previous lists but haven't
> found anything yet that really addresses it (until I get flamed
> and told...) Also excuse the length of this, it's partly because
> I've read some related posts and am trying to address the issues
> raised. Mainly it's because I talk too much.
> Package management is obviously a fundamentally important issue.
> I would like a clearer picture of package management in the "new
> look" Red Hat (basically since 8.0). Distros are getting very
> advanced and useable now; all the top ones (RH, Mandy, Deb and
> SuSE, just as examples) seem pretty much to be decent alternatives
> to "more established" desktop systems, or getting close.
> Almost all of the distros mentioned above have pretty "advanced"
> package management, except for Red Hat. The obvious comparison
> is Deb's apt-get. Mandrake have something similar, and I've
> just been messing around with SuSE 8.0 and am pretty impressed
> by the no-brains-required YaST tool that seems to offer much
> the same functionality as the others.
> GnoRPM was a little weird and I could never get it to behave
> the way I wanted. Kpackage was the nearest thing to useful;
> I could put any package repositories I wanted into it, and
> when used it would highlight dependencies and usually help
> me deal with them. Not perfect, but mostly worked okay.
> Then, finally, apt for Redhat came along and an awful lot of
> people said, well... "Finally". Clearly, a lot of people are
> increasingly using it.
> But with RH 8.0, package management seemed to go backwards.
> redhat-config-packages will pretty much only install off the
> CDs (don't yell - I said pretty much); no configurable FTP/HTTP
> repositories (that I'm aware of), no apparent acknowledgement
> of apt so far, etc. Most people appear to agree that the tool
> is too simple as it stands. There is a mismatch here: given
> that everything else in the distro is getting so polished, this
> lack seems conspicuous.
> Yet there are no other (official RH) alternatives: things like
> kpackage have disappeared. Surely, while one tool is developing,
> a more functional one would remain available. Redhat's user config
> tool was around at the same time as KDE's while the former was
> developing; I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.
> The appearance of the kde-redhat project would appear to be a
> good example of what may be an increasingly important issue:
> RH's choice to "customise" a very successful existing set
> of packages. I was surprised by some of the developments in
> RH recently, and am still with RH 7.3 because of it, so of
> course I'm running that project's version of KDE 3.1, and it's
> working very well. But this may be another essay...
> Phoebe looks good (actually I'm pretty impressed overall),
> but I still wonder about the conspicuous absence of advanced
> package management. The other popular distros are conspicuous
> by their inclusion, often, of several packages that do the same
> thing. I'm not sure if the argument that "if we don't take out
> one then the other won't develop" holds, especially when taking
> out the incumbent one means a tangible loss of functionality.
> GNU/Linux is characterised by its redundancies, and, usually,
> "may the best package win" has worked.
> - Marcus
> Phoebe-list mailing list
> Phoebe-list redhat com
I agree that the redundacy needs to be there for keeping the level for
the distributions high. I believe that the main goal with 8.0 was to
make it look so easy to use, that they felt comfortable. Hiding the
terminal from the common user was a concious choice. I guess the package
manager is another effort at making the converted win to linux user at a
level of comfort. It might also be an attempt to keep the system
For the most part. I use rpm at command line. But for cases like
packages that have multiple instances installed. In my case it was just
the gpg keys, not an actual rpm. It would be great to have a GUI that is
powerful for the more capable users.
I did have multiple instances of real programs installed before. I used
gnorpm to remove the two different versions. The duplications were of a
large quantity. It was when I was playing around with ximian and
upgraded from a lower redhat version to a later version. Using a command
line version for some major rpm problem would be very hard to acomplish
without a good visual rpm management program. There should be
consideration to keeping gnorpm or kde's version for managing the system
BTW - gnorpm successfully remoed the extra instances and my system was
useful again, without reinstalling everything. I hope that it is
included or redhat-config-packages is improved enough to be versatile
Courage is fear that has said its prayers.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]