RE: corel

["Burke, Jason" <JBurke@lrs.com>]

The main thing I've noticed about the differences between rpm and deb
is that debian seems to handle package dependencies and the package
database better. However, on the other hand rpm is a much cleaner
and simpler implementation. I often get annoyed with all the pre-
and post-script execution that goes on with debian packages(very ugly 
to look at and confusing when your just trying to get something installed).

Although as Steve points out, these are implementation issues. 
Although, it was my understanding that rpm couldn't run scripts on post
or pre-installation. 

Jason


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Steven Pritchard [SMTP:steve@silug.org]
> Sent:	Sunday, December 12, 1999 2:59 PM
> To:	luci-discuss@luci.org
> Subject:	Re: corel
> 
> 
> Mark Blunier said:
> > Why are you disappointed when it is base on deb, which is better?
> 
> That's purely a matter of opinion.
> 
> IMNSHO, the big difference between Debian and the RPM-based
> distributions is the tools.  There is no question that the Debian
> tools are *way* ahead of RPM.  Red Hat has only recently made a
> (somewhat feeble) attempt to remedy that with gnorpm.
> 
> On the other hand, I have yet to be convinced that the Debian package
> management system as a whole is superior to RPM.  From what
> (admittedly little) I've seen of Debian's packages, RPMs are cleaner
> and easier to build.  Yes, the dependencies could use a little work
> (why should someone necessarily need to know that a dependency on
> libhistory.so.3 means they need the readline package installed?), but,
> again, that's a tools issue, not an issue with the packaging system.
> 
	[SNIP]

--
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@luci.org with
"unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.