Yet another package manager

[David Bandel]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:39:02 -0600, Michael Hipp <Michael at hipp.com> wrote:
[snip]
> 
> I'm no expert on this subject by any means, so anything I say is open to
> correction ...
> 
> That out of the way, I'm convinced that DEB is superior to RPM for this very
> reason.
> 
> When trying to install an rpm with a missing dependency it tells me which
> *file* it is missing. It's usually something intuitively obvious like
> 
>    libjkhlgkfj.so.x.3.8.9-4.384-a.4.9
> 
> As if I'm supposed to know where to get such a monster. And the developer had
> that lib on his machine and doesn't even know it and who knows where he got it
> from originally. In any case my only hope is a long night of googling trying
> to locate this prodigal son.
> 
> When a deb is missing a dependency, it tells me it needs the package
> lib-fubar-perl or somesuch. Which most likely is in a repository near to where
> I got the first thing. In any event, the fact that the dependency is a
> *package* means the deb packager had to actually think about where the
> dependencies come from.

Yep, and the program they use is called "ldd".  It will tell you what
it needs.  What it won't tell you is what other programs might be
called, but again, the Debian packagers are fairly good.

I personally don't use apt-get often, I find the older dselect gives
me more options.  You can purge (or not) configuration files, and when
you upgrade, you get the new configuration file if you need it (or ask
for it) otherwise, the old config is dealt with (or just used).

RPM has never been kind about configuration files.  Too few options.

> 
> Now somebody can straighten me out ...  ;-)
> 

Ciao,

David A. Bandel
-- 
Focus on the dream, not the competition.
            - Nemesis Air Racing Team motto