[Wolves] *nix packaging; was RPM

Old Dan dan at dannyboy.dnsalias.org
Wed Jan 21 10:52:39 GMT 2004

sparkes wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 10:04, Old Dan wrote:
>>::dons asbestos suit::
> and with good reason too ;-)
That's a flame?  You pussycat!  :)

>>Piffle.  It all depends on how well the database itself is kept up to 
>>date.  It just so happens the Debian database is the best maintained, 
>>but with woody that is at the expense of having less up-to-date 
>>packages.  Intrinsically apt is no better than rpm IMHO.
> I use woody on my server and get all my requirements forfilled.  I don't
> need the latest packages unless there is a security fix which either
> means the woody version is upgraded quickly to the new version or in the
> case of libary incompatabilities an older package is patched and
> released.
True, but there are often increases in functionality which are nice to 
have on a server.

>>Try installing from sources other than the Debian official ones and you 
>>may find yourself in dependency hell again.  In fact, even in official 
>>Sarge there are still some packages which just Don't Work right now... :)
>>(Though as it's a 'testing' distribution that's not suprising...)
> My laptop is on the other end of the scale.  To get the best out the
> machine I need the latest packages.  So being a good debianite I
> installed woody and used unoffical backports to get the bits I needed. 
> Some testing and unstable packages, some offical packages and some
> totally unoffical packages.  The result was the kind of mess you
> describe.  An unmaintainable mess.  
Indeed.  Do you think it would have been better, worse or about the same 
with RPM?

> So I switched from debian (woody) to Suse and the first package I tried
> to add that didn't come direct from suse broke loads of packages.  The
> problem took ages to fix.  Then offical suse packages started having
> problems that took longer and longer to fix.
...and the same would go for debian/apt, unfortunately.

I can remember the thing with KDE3 - ::shudder::

> Now I run debain sid on the lappy and fingers crossed I don't get many
> problems.  My source list contains (quick check) 9! entries for binary
> packages.  Because I all of these contain packages that are developed on
> sid (and not other debian versions) They all work together
> harmoniously.  I am running the latest gnome packages, I get firebird,
> mplayer and other fast moving packages updated almost weekly and I never
> have any problems with apps.  Sometimes two sources might have different
> names for the same lib and both try and replace the same legacy lib but
> it is just as easy to tell dpkg to take what it is given as rpm ;-) 
That is nothing (intrinsically) to do with apt, though, is it?  It's to 
do with the databases being maintained properly.  Good luck with Sid - I 
had no end of problems when I used it.  Remember it's /intended/ to be 

> It seems that unstable is more stable than stable if you stick with it
> and don't try to mix and match.  My system is as up to date as most rpm
> based systems and dependancy problems are a lot easier to fix ;-)
...for now.  You have my sympathy/admiration... :)

> sparkes - apt through and through
Heh - I'm debian through and through and you know it.

I'm just not under any illusions about apt anymore.


More information about the Wolves mailing list