Holy War(!): APT vs. RPM (was: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?)
Joshua Judson Rosen <rozzin@...
2011-03-03 02:31:29 GMT
Benjamin Scott <dragonhawk <at> gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Tom Buskey <tom <at> buskey.name> wrote:
> > It's nice/sad to see Debian getting the symptoms of RPM hell that people
> > always bring up.
> Debian -- or rather, dpkg/APT -- has always had the exact same
> behavior as RPM/YUM, it's just Debian bigots (who crawl out of the
> woodwork whenever package management is mentioned) were too blinded by
> zealotry to understand them.
I know this isn't what you're addressing here (and, for what it's worth,
I basically agree with you on the point you're making), but there /are/
actually some fairly deep differences in what RPM and dpkg do:
they chose very different answers for all sorts of `system policy'-type
questions like `do we use a binary database and provide a toolset
that should meet the admin needs, or do we store everything in
text-files that can be handled by existing text-manipulation tools'
and `during upgrade, do we uninstall the old version *before*
overwriting it with the new version, or *afterward*'.
There are corners where people care about things like that
at least quasi-legitimately, similarly to how/why they might
care about other system-policy issues.
Not that it really affects the `One True Way' arguments....
> Both RPM and dpkg properly warn you if unmet dependencies exist.
> Both communities developed tools to solve dependencies for you.
> Debian came up with APT and put it into their distribution from an