apt
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Void_Main Sep 14, 2004 9:03 AM EDT |
Good article but the author seems to make a slight mistake in thinking that apt is a package manager when he says this: "RPM is too low level, lacking any sort of dependency checking and being basically obnoxious." apt sits on top of the package management system. On RPM based systems apt sits on top of rpm. apt hunts down the requested package, along with any depended packages and installs them using rpm. On Debian based systems it sits on top of dpkg (deb packages) and does the same thing. Also, rpm *does* do dependency checking, that's why it doesn't just let you install anything you want without having the proper dependent packages installed. If you don't know how to use RPM it most certainly would seem obnoxious and apt has been my favorite tool for a long time now in both Debian and Red Hat based distros (even SUSE). I do like this guys articles though. I even wrote a few apt tips back when RH8 came out: The following are all pretty much the same for FC1, RH9, and RH8. http://voidmain.is-a-geek.net/redhat/fedora_1_apt-get_must_h... http://voidmain.is-a-geek.net/redhat/redhat_9_apt-get_must_h... http://voidmain.is-a-geek.net/redhat/redhat_8_apt-get_must_h... The above are a little outdated because now I would just suggest going and getting the "apt" package from Dag Wieers' site and installing it. Most of the other directions in all the tips would still apply: http://dag.wieers.com/home-made/apt/ |
| ralsina Sep 14, 2004 11:04 AM EDT |
Well, since I wrote an article three days ago about creating RPMs, trust me, I know how to use RPM ;-) You use APT to manage your packages. That makes it a package manager. Any argument about that is really fluff. Sure, APT uses RPM. So what? RPM uses cp to install the software, does that make cp the real package manager? ;-) I did write wrongly in saying RPM lacks dependency checking. I should have said it lacks dependency handling, or dependency solving, or something like that. Thanks for the comment! |
| Void_Main Sep 14, 2004 11:32 AM EDT |
I was complimenting your article by the way. Also because you write an article about creating RPMS certainly does not make you an expert in creating RPMS, especially when you use a tool to do the RPM creating for you. I also create RPMS (from scratch) and I certainly don't claim to be an expert, even though I have been using rpm from the day it was invented. I have seen many articles written about RPM who are obvoiusly no experts on the subject. No, cp is not a package manager. What makes RPM the package manager (besides it's name) is the fact that it is what is actually managing the software that is installed on your system. It knows not only about what is installed but what permissions each file that is is install should have, their MD5 sum, their date/time stamp, their version, etc, etc. apt knows very little of this and thus uses the package management tool (rpm) to actually check the software in and out of the system. apt will not function without rpm or dpkg. But like I said, I like your articles, don't blow it. Slamming you was not my intent at all. What's funny is, I even call it a "package management system" in my tips. This message was edited Sep 14, 2004 2:45 PM |
| ralsina Sep 14, 2004 11:52 AM EDT |
Yes, I know you were complimenting the article, that's why I said thanks, really! :-) I am just being a little critical of your post, that's not bad is it? Void, you are free to believe I don't know how to use RPM. You would just be wrong, since I know a lot about how to use it. Really, I **teach** how to use it. I am not all that good at creating RPMs, though, yeah. Apt can tell you all the information you claim RPM knows and apt doesn't. Just call apt-cache show package Sure, you may say, apt got that from RPM. It makes no difference! RPM got it from db4 anyway (and yes, RPM put it there). And the comparison with cp is actually a pretty good argument. rpm doesn't work without cp and cpio and a bunch of other tools. So what? A package manager is what you use to manage your packages. If you have a different definition, feel free to use it, but my definition is pretty reasonable, IMVHO. |
| dave Sep 14, 2004 11:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:RPM uses cp to install the software Actually, RPM uses cpio. :-) dave |
| ralsina Sep 14, 2004 11:56 AM EDT |
Dave: hehe :-) good thing I mentioned cpio three minutes before you posted that, or I would be in big trouble ;-) |
| dave Sep 14, 2004 11:58 AM EDT |
Indeed!!! |
| Void_Main Sep 14, 2004 4:47 PM EDT |
"Void, you are free to believe I don't know how to use RPM." Ahhh, I think I figured out the nerve I must have struck (and believe me, I've been scratching my head over it). I have to be more careful how I word things I guess. When I said "If you don't know how to use RPM it most certainly would seem obnoxious" I actually meant "you" generically as in "people", not "you" personally because I *know* that *you* know how to use rpm having read your previous articles. My original post was not directed to *you* personally but I was using the word "you" to refer to anyone who might be reading it in a hypothetical situation where they might have a hard time using rpm. I am sure you have seen people complain about RPM being broken because they try to install something and it telling them it can't because it depends on another package and they just don't realize that they have to also get that other package and install it before, or at the same time as the original package they were trying to install. It's not broken, it's just that they don't understand how to use RPM. That's what apt does for you. It grabs the other packages that are needed and installs them at the same time. I know that *you* know all of this. Really, there was no intent to make it look like you didn't know how to use rpm. If you notice in my rpm tips I also say that using apt eliminates what "people" refer to as RPM hell. :) Seriously, we are on the same page except for minor naming, and if you look at the apt man page it would appear that you are more correct in the naming according to the authors of apt. I just do not agree that apt is a package manager as it can not manage packages without the real underlying package manager. The underlying package manager can manage packages just fine without apt. Heck, I don't think I agree with anyone 100% about everything. But we agree on one thing I am sure. apt is the bees knees. Those GUI kind of people might even want to stick Synaptic on top of apt but I wouldn't be one of those. :) Believe me, I am happy that you are writing these tips/howtos. The *only* reason I wrote the ones I have is because at the time I wrote them I couldn't find any satisfactory help on the subjects and many people were asking me how to do those things. I also have a small apt repository of specialty items when people ask for them (on low bandwidth so I keep it skimpy). I was actually trying to reinforce your article and in the process I pointed out one small thing that I did not agree with. Oh well, maybe someone is now smarter (or more likely dumber) having read this thread. :) This message was edited Sep 14, 2004 8:06 PM |
| ralsina Sep 15, 2004 8:13 AM EDT |
Oh, cool, I like when things end well :-) Yeah, I'm touchy sometimes :-( |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!