[svlug] Red Hat pulls plugs on Red Hat Linux product line

Karsten M. Self kmself at ix.netcom.com
Sun Nov 9 17:38:37 PST 2003


on Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 09:26:32PM -0800, Marc MERLIN (marc_news at merlins.org) wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:11:33AM -0500, J C Lawrence wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:33:07 -0800 
> > kim  <kim at linuxpuppy.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In a nutshell, can you tell me if Fedora will be RPM or APT based. (or
> > > both?)
> > 
> > RPM and APT are non-exclusive.  RPM is a (mediocre) packaging format.
> > APT is a listing and acquisition method.
> 
> RPM is not mediocre, it's just different from dpkg
> Each format has a few pluses an minuses (dpkg seems to win by a small
> margin, but that doesn't make rpm mediocre)
> http://kitenet.net/~joey/pkg-comp/

The primary distinguishing charateristic to my mind is that a DEB can be
unpacked with standard shell tools (ar and tar).  An RPM is a binary
format, for which the supporting libs and an RPM-enabled tool are
required.  The RPM format has changed in incompatible ways over time.

It's possible to (and I have) rescue Debian systems by fetching the
appropriate archive, unpacking it on another system, and copying it into
place via floppy, SLIP, PLIP, or other minimal connection.  I've
recovered some very hosed systems using this and similar tricks.

The package database itself (not strictly part of the package format) is
also more robust and human-readable in Debian.


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   We freed Dmitry!        Boycott Adobe!         Repeal the DMCA!
     http://www.freesklyarov.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.svlug.org/archives/svlug/attachments/20031110/f116bd6c/attachment.bin


More information about the svlug mailing list