Debian Planet










Welcome to Debian Planet

Search

Apt-get into it.
Main Menu

  • Home

  • Topics

  • Web Links

  • Your Account

  • Submit News

  • Stats

  • Top 10

  • Debian

    These are important Debian sites one should not be without!

  • Official Debian site

  • Package search

  • Mailing list archives

  • Bug reports

  • Debian on CD

  • Unofficial woody CD ISOs

  • Unofficial APT sources

  • Developers' Corner

    Other great Debian news sources:

  • Debian Weekly News

  • Kernel Cousin Debian

    (Debian mailing lists digested)
  • Community Groups

    Need help? You're not alone on this planet.

  • debianHELP

    (User support site)

  • Debian International

  • DebianForum.de

    (Deutsch)

  • EsDebian

    (espaΓ±ol)

  • DebianWorld

    (français)

  • MaximumDebian

    (Italiano)

  • DebianUsers

    (Korean)

  • Debian-BR

    (PortuguΓͺs)

  • IRC

    The place to get help on a Debian problem (after reading docs) or to just chat and chill is #debian on irc.debian.org.

    Many of the Debian Planet staff live there so pop by and say hello.

    Wanna write?

    Got that latest or greatest scoop? Perhaps you have some important news for the Debian community? Submit a news item!

    Or perhaps you've written a rather ground breaking insight into some aspect of Debian and you feel compelled to share it with others? Knock up a longer editorial article and send it to the editors.

    Sponsorship

    DP is sponsored by Xinit Systems and kieser.net.

    Domains paid for and hosted by uklinux.net.

    Buy your Debian merchandise at DebianShop.com.

    Who's Online

    There are currently, 51 guest(s) and 5 member(s) that are online.

    You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here.

      
    What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences
    Contributed by arcterex on Wednesday, June 13 @ 10:07:26 BST

    Package Management
    This has been thrown around by a few of the guys here for a while, but what are the *real* differences between debs and rpms? They both basically do the same thing, have pretty much the same options and switches, yet create a rift in the linux community between the debian based distros and the rpm based distros.

    Is the difference really that big, or is it mostly a religious preference? I know that on the backend they both work off a different database system, and the formats are different, but how hard would it be to make a redhat system work via dpkg/apt? Could it be done? On the flipside, could a debian system be made to work with rpms (I'm talking natively, not via alien).

    Something that seems would be advantagous of the linux community would be a common packaging format. .deb has some advantages, and .rpm has some. Both camps can put efforts into creating feature compatibility between the two (signed packages, encryption, etc etc), but that may be wasted effort when both camps could work towards making the distro work with ONE of the two formats.

     
    Related Links

  • Comparison by Joey Hess
  • More about Package Management
  • News by rob

    Most read story about Package Management:
    What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences

    Last news about Package Management:

    Printer Friendly Page  Send this Story to a Friend
  • "What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences" | Login/Create Account | 75 comments
    Threshold


    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 3, Informative)
    by zoltan on Wednesday, June 13 @ 13:06:20 BST
    (User Info)

    It isn't so much as the actual files but the backend that supports it. dpkg and apt-get are a much more powerful combo than say rpm and rpmfind.net. dpkg/apt handles dependancies much better and you end up getting a cleaner system when moving between distributions (ie potato -> sid). Cant say the same for redhat and friends.

    Thats just my .02

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Interesting)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 18:39:13 BST

    1) apt works with rpm too.

    2) of course an upgrade from redhat to another rpm-based distro may not be as clean as from one debian version to another. that's because the rpm-based distros aren't all compatible with redhat. you could upgrade redhat 5.2 to 7.1 with no problems.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 @ 04:45:42 BST

    So how about rpm and apt-get, as Conectiva users and, say, people using Mandrake Cooker, can tell you they have? I'd like to see someone point out real advantages to the .deb package, not just "oh look, we have apt-get, you have rpmfind.net."

    You see, the argument really doesn't work when apt-get works with rpm (though to be fair, RH doesn't have apt-get-enabled mirrors.)

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 @ 11:07:35 BST

    Sure, to the user, this assertion is correct. But, from the packager's point of view, .rpm just can't compete. Have a look at a reasonably complex RPM - let's say, from one source tarball into multiple binary RPMs. Look at that spec file. Then look at the debian/ directory of a single-source, multi-binary Debian package. Mmm. Much cleaner.

    Then there's debhelper. I maintain a couple of packages that include kernel patches. Whoa! Oh my god! How do you handle this? It's easy - a trivial debian/kpatches (read: 7 lines of headers, and 2 lines for every patch - one for each kernel version), and dh_installkpatches. Those packages are absolutely trivial.

    And debconf. RedHat simply has no answer, and debconf makes it easy, and unified.

    Someone has indeed mentioned policy, but that's really a point of Debian, not the .deb packaging format. RedHat especially is hell in this. Have you ever got messages from packages complaining that they can't find the "mysql" package installed, when you have the "MySQL" package installed? Gack. And then there's the standard locations - /usr/share/, /usr/share/doc/, etc. And the BTS. For instance, one of my packages didn't build on the PowerPC autobuilder (mmm, autobuilders - very cool), so a release-critical bug got filed against my package immediately. Likewise for policy violations - an RC bug.

    So, um, yeah, .deb is far cooler and stuff, and debian-policy, combined with apt-get (deity-gtk is also beautiful), simply rocks.

    πŸ™‚ d

    (Daniel Stone, who is posting as anonymous because his main machine has a stuffed primary master, and is currently reinstalling Debian)

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 @ 16:01:31 BST

    If the file format isn't the sticking point, just the current clients, then why are you so down on RPMs? It's not that hard to do a client if you don't like the current ones -- there are already a *ton* of RPM clients to fit different people's preferences. If your client tastes are so widely shared, people'd happily use it.

    Given the amount of work that Debianites put into packaging work, you'd think that poking up an apt-get lookalike using librpm wouldn't be all that impossible...

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Insighful)
    by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 @ 15:21:04 BST

    Moving to a common packaging system would be GREAT. The only problem I can see would be getting people to actually follow through with it. I doubt this will happen, even if the LSB made a packaging format I don't think redhat would move away from RPM.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 3, Insighful)
    by Freaky on Wednesday, June 13 @ 15:37:50 BST
    (User Info) http://www.aagh.net/

    The biggest problem would more likely be getting RPM's to fit in with Debian policy.

    Have a look in /usr/doc/debian-policy/, apt-get install debian-policy if you don't have it.

    I know, let's just move to .msi! πŸ™‚

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1)
    by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 @ 15:58:14 BST

    My concern is not so much what .debs there are, but compatibility between systems. If redhat wants to have a sources.list of "deb http://packages.redhat.com foo bar baz" let them. They can put their software and non-free or whatever, that's cool.

    The key is that the format is common. Just like now prodgeny has their own .deb tree and mandrake has their own rpms, let everyone have their own apt-sources πŸ™‚

    Unless of course there is a policy restriction on what packages dpkg/apt can deal with (which I severely doubt πŸ™‚

    As for everyone moving to .msi, hey, if it works better, and full fills all the requirements you have before... why not? Seriously, if msi was crossplatform and totally free, and did what apt-get does as well as all the signing, encrypting, md5summing, why not? (food for thought, I don't like the idea either!)

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Informative)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 03:28:48 BST

    The problem comes with naming policy. It would be difficult to create a universal 3rd party package if dependencies were different for each distribution.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0, Troll)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, June 14 @ 00:44:41 BST

    Since Redhat control the LSB, the packaging format the LSB would recommend will be RPM.

    Think I'm just being paranoid or anti-redhat bashing? Read the current LSB recommendations.

    The LSB is a crock of shit and I thank God there's still sensible people like Patrick Volkerding who refuse to have it corrupt their distribution.

    Until the LSB board is not stacked 2-1 with Redhat and pro-Redhat wankers it's not worth the effort since they might as well just take the waiting period away and say the current LSB is whatever Redhat does.

    The bigger problem with a common packaging system is not any personal bias, but the fact that common usually equates to mediocre, since no side wants to give any other more slack lest the new system practically be that existing one. So we'll end up with all the common, expected features between the three systems I can think of offhand, and none of the good features of any of them.

    I don't believe the Linux Standard should be advocating such a depleted system.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Interesting)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 18:41:44 BST

    the reason rpm is recommended is simple: everybody is using it. it has become the standard, no matter what LSB or other say.

    there are a lot more people using rpm than any other format out there.

    and if you think the LSB is corrupt, why not join and help?

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 19:15:05 BST


    the reason rpm is recommended is simple: everybody is using it. it has become the standard, no matter what LSB or other say.

    Well that's a pretty dumb reason, IMHO. The problem with choosing .rpm over .deb, is that everything that .rpm can do, .deb can also do, but not vice versa. So if they choose .rpm, there will be features that are lost in Debian. Where as if they choose .deb, RedHat can still do everything that they currently do, and they don' thave to create a nice consistant set of packages, but they can if they want to. RedHat would only lose time in having to convert everything from .rpm to .deb. Debian would lose functionality in having to convert everything from .deb to .rpm.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Informative)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 21:30:08 BST

    the thing is that most people don't care for most of dpkg's extra features. they want their package manager to:

    1) install the files if all dependencies are met;

    2) easy installation and removal of packages.

    the extra features of dpkg, such as configuration of each package right after it's been installed, is considered bloat. they want to configure the package just like they would if they had compiled the package themselves.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 22 @ 12:01:42 GMT

    The thing is that I don't care about rpm's popularity. I want my package manager to :

    1) install the files if all dependencies are met;

    2) easy installation and removal of packages.

    blablabla

    Oh! sorry! I think I get it now, ...

    you're 26 years old or less, and you take it personaly when we talk about the differences between .deb and .rpm.

    That's ok ! No problem, i used to feel the same, with Windows and Linux.

    (Sorry, I just felt a bit incomfortable,(he, lol) when you mention the mass has a motive for a choice. Please don't take it personnaly.)

    Rpm, dpkg, LSB, redhat, debian, windows, ..., blablabla. Me, I tried them, learned about them, hence, i know what i am talking about, I have an opinion about it, its not like the kiddie who says shit about X and knows shit about it.

    Whatever is going to hapenned with .deb, .rpm, debian, redhat, I'm gona be using and promoting what fits best with my vision at that moment.

    The "most people" you are talking about include individuals who drive their cars like nuts and others killing each other for economicals, political, religious or whatever reasons they may.

    I am not gona move forward in my life if I stick to what "most people" think and do, definitly not.

    And has of today, apt, dpkg, .deb and debian fits my need a lot more than rpm and redhat. Who knows, one day I migth go back to redhat.

    blablabla!

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 5, Informative)
    by Robot101 (robot1<zero>1@debian.org) on Wednesday, June 13 @ 16:16:45 BST
    (User Info)

    The package format, in terms of a bunch of files in some kind of tar/ar/gzip munchage, is not very different. That's why alien exists, and works. If you don't mind throwing Debian policy to the wind, you can fill your system with crap by aliening a lot of RPMs and installing them.

    The difference is in the other part of the package, the control info, the maintainer scripts, and the package relationships. Debian has more package relationships, depends, suggests, conflicts, replaces, provides, etc, which would probably render debs uninstallable on rpm systems, which always have fucked dependencies anyway, or let you install a deb on an rpm system when the deb wouldn't natively want to install. Debian's maintainer scripts would have a hard time working on redhat systems, calling on update-rc.d, update-inetd, etc etc.

    The real difference that prevents a common format is a difference in approach, Debian vs RedHat. We have policy, packages that are upgradable from way back when, strict standards, and right ways to do things, and RedHat have... a bunch of files dropped any-which way with some GUI configurator. A common package format cannot resolve these differences, as the two approaches are alien to each other. Considering the number, and quality of RPMs on the 'net, I wouldn't want to install them on my box anyway. If you see any .debs lacking, let me know and if it's good, I'll package it for you.

    Regards,

    Rob

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: -1, Offtopic)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 04:17:47 BST


    Thanks for the article it was interesting.

    Yeah rpms and .deb feels the same when you want

    to run dpkg --install , sort of the same

    feel hehe πŸ™‚ Hey we really need a nice .deb

    pkg for Firestarter, http://firestarter.sourceforge.net not just a

    reconfigured rpm like the last guy who did it.

    If you would make a .deb I know alot of people

    will use Firestarter, it is starting to gather a

    following of people that would like an easy

    firewall to use such as this one. But the way it

    needs to work is the way it's meant, to which

    it never does unless you run it in Rh. thru the rpm as the install. It should allow you to click the 'icon' in the menu file, and then bring up a 'root password prompt window', instead of starting it in a term, the way I need to now. And in gnome in the 'tasklist', it should show it's 'mini icon' when the window is open, and as well, as in the menu bar, that you can create on the 'Top' of the

    desktop, that shows the icon on the right side of the menu, of the program you have open, and using at the time. Well just some input as to what needs to be cleaned up on it, if you decide you would like to make the pkg. You can catch me in irc.openprojects.net #Firestarter, if you would like to chat more on it. Thank you very much for your time, and consideration in this matter. πŸ™‚

    Xgates

    [ Reply ]


    Re: Would you make this Package as a .deb ??? (Score: -1, Offtopic)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 04:20:25 BST


    Thanks for the article it was interesting.

    Yeah rpms and .deb feels the same when you want

    to run dpkg --install , sort of the same

    feel hehe πŸ™‚ Hey we really need a nice .deb

    pkg for Firestarter, http://firestarter.sourceforge.net not just a

    reconfigured rpm like the last guy who did it.

    If you would make a .deb I know alot of people

    will use Firestarter, it is starting to gather a

    following of people that would like an easy

    firewall to use such as this one. But the way it

    needs to work is the way it's meant, to which

    it never does unless you run it in Rh. thru the rpm as the install. It should allow you to click the 'icon' in the menu file, and then bring up a 'root password prompt window', instead of starting it in a term, the way I need to now. And in gnome in the 'tasklist', it should show it's 'mini icon' when the window is open, and as well, as in the menu bar, that you can create on the 'Top' of the

    desktop, that shows the icon on the right side of the menu, of the program you have open, and using at the time. Well just some input as to what needs to be cleaned up on it, if you decide you would like to make the pkg. You can catch me in irc.openprojects.net #Firestarter, if you would like to chat more on it. Thank you very much for your time, and consideration in this matter. πŸ™‚

    Xgates

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 15:35:37 BST

    I agree that the *real* difference between the two formats (aside from appearently finer grained dependencies in .debs; ie suggests and recommends) is a cultural one. .debs are typically packaged with greater care.

    However, I disagree that this cultural difference should be enforced by technical standards. It should be the system administrator's choice whether she chooses to install a particular package or not.

    Right now what happens is that people are locked into their systems. If they want to install a package from a different distro they have to use alien. And, be honest, how many of you have ever done that?

    In my opinion it would be best for the linux community to settle on one packaging standard that unites the technical advantages of the two existing ones. That would still allow people who think like you, not to install any packages that don't follow debian policy, while at the same time making it easier to use software from different distros if one wants to.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 18:19:35 BST

    You ask who installs alien-produced deb's. Well, I have. For realplayer 8, for example. I know it's closed source, but it's damn handy, and the alien --to-deb package worked fine.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 20:20:22 BST

    yeah, I used to do that when I was running stable. unstable has a "realplayer" package that will convert the RPM into a nice package, etc. for you, kinda like the setiathome or xanim-modules packages.

    -l

    [ Reply ]


    Instead of building a deb for me (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Sunday, June 17 @ 10:18:58 BST

    How about writing some documentation on building deb files? A "debs for semi-newbies" kind of thing.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: Instead of building a deb for me (Score: 2, Informative)
    by drone0709 on Sunday, June 17 @ 18:28:48 BST
    (User Info)

    Check out here for a newbie guide to deb building - Also lots of other stuff for debian developers

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Sunday, June 17 @ 18:04:54 BST

    My orientation is different from you guys: I'm a several-year RH user, with about a 1-1/2 week experience with Debian (on my Sparc). I haven't figured out what apt-get et al do under the hood but find dselect really lacking on the user interface side.

    Anyway, back to RPM. I spent some time building a RH 7.1 for my Sparc. If you didn't know, RH stopped releasing at 6.2. Okay, so that means bootstrapping RPM from 3.x to 4.x, then building the .SRPMS from the i386 port. A lot of them convert easily; several of them won't build out of the box due to small pieces of hackery that didn't get put back into the SRPM script, and then there are issues where the source tarball being built is not pristine (it's joe's tarball plus 20 patches; if it were pristine, it might have been the tarball plus 25 patches -- guess where the five patches are?)

    Did I get it to work? Yeah. Several of the SRPMes indicate that they won't work on the Sparc because they relied on something else that wouldn't work -- ostensibly Xfree 4.0, which I had to track down, get functional, then convert the "spec" files so it'd try to build those files.

    The issue about dependencies is interesting -- they have a script which scans the binaries, finds the requisite libraries (ldd) and builds dependency information from that. But, it doesn't know that I might have included a header from Qt (but somehow do not link it's libraries), or that the Makefile needs a specific version of autoconf -- the information's just not captured at that granularity. I suspect, by either tool, but it's still something you gotta know. Plus, the dependency info is about as good as the guy writing the .spec file. There are tools to help him, but ultimately guess what?

    I can't say Debian is better, I don't know enough yet. I do know the damned installer was given 3 binary CDs and installed nothing from the third, barely anything from the 2nd, and some fool didn't install gtk-config when they installed the libraries -- how in the ^(^& do people build stuff when gtk & gnome rely on these config files, yet somebody in the maintainer dept. thought they shouldn't be in the package. Hey pal, they're relied on to build other gnome/gtk toys!

    .deb and .rpm fail outside of Linux. Why? Well, there is no good packaging system for other UNIXes, and RH tried to have rpm ported to HPUX, Solaris et al. Where in the file naming convention, or the documented headers, where you get to say that this package only installs on HPUX 11.0? Think the name/location of the dependencies might change between Solaris and AIX? You betcha! Hah, or Suse versus Slackware, versus RH?

    Sorry if anyone thought I'd proclaim a winner, there's warts abound for both...

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Interesting)
    by Anonymous on Sunday, June 17 @ 19:53:52 BST

    Erm, *-config live in *-dev packages. That's the only reason I can think of for gtk-config not being there when you needed it.

    dselect (to me) is a lot like vi -- annoying to learn, potentially powerful to use. Some of the time I'll just stick to apt-get to grab a package I'm interested in, but dselect tells me about newly added packages, and non-critical dependencies, giving me the options to install packages and stuff. Yes, it's annoying and seemingly arcane, but it's also a very cool way to get things done.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, July 02 @ 19:30:46 BST

    Try aptitude (as a dselect replacement). The interface doesn't feel so cluttered and I find it easier and quicker to use.

    It still has some UI problems (for example, pulling packages off the cdrom when the cdrom isn't present) but seems to generally work well.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 2, Informative)
    by romain (romain@debian.org) on Monday, February 04 @ 14:22:14 GMT
    (User Info) http://newbiedoc.sourceforge.net

    > I do know the damned installer was given 3 binary

    > CDs and installed nothing from the third, barely

    > anything from the 2nd, ...

    The packages in the CDs are arranged so that the most-used packages are on the first CD, the less-used on the 2nd, etc.

    The results from the popularity-contest, along with some reasonable heuristics (dependencies, bribes, etc...) are used to determine the exact repartition.

    What you're describing is a fairly normal install, without much fantasy in your choice of packages. πŸ™‚

    HTH,

    Romain

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 2, Interesting)
    by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 @ 16:19:34 BST


    Common packaging format is not a good idea.

    Currently say SuSE and RedHat both use rpm and you see

    how it looks like . One big mess.

    Debian should stick to what it has (or develop something

    on its own) and not go into some 'common formats' or whatever.

    Debian has taken different roads a few times in the past, and it

    always proved as technically superior.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: -1, Redundant)
    by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 @ 17:01:11 BST

    AMEN, BROTHER !!!

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, June 14 @ 01:33:12 BST

    Nail ... head ... hammer .... hit, you get what I mean.

    No matter what it most popular or what becomes 'standard' don't ever give in to something that is inferior. I've had a RH6.2 box and never will I go back. For starters I had such a hard time trying get XFree86 4.0 to install that I gave up. It was just taking too much time and too much hassle. In all honesty I would sooner muck around on my Windows 2000 box than RH.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Funny)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 19:18:01 BST


    In all honesty I would sooner muck around on my Windows 2000 box than RH.

    Holy Schnikies! You are kidding right? If not, you are really a sick puppy.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 5, Informative)
    by ElectricElf (dbarclay10 at yahoo dot ca) on Wednesday, June 13 @ 16:46:03 BST
    (User Info) http://www.nether.net/~dharris/

    The package formats themselves are fairly simple.

    Debian's .deb: An 'ar' file, containing three tar.gz archives. Two of those .tar.gz's are of particular interest - data.tar.gz, and control.tar.gz. data.tar.gz contains the files which will actually be installed to the filesystem. control.tar.gz contains the package headers/description, the various scripts that will be run, so on and so forth.

    Red Hat's RPM: An RPM is a modified 'cpio' archive. The modifications are fairly straightforward - it takes about twenty lines of C code to convert an RPM 'cpio' archive to a regular 'cpio' archive. The changes allow the archive to start with package control data, such as scripts and headers(dependency information, package description - similar to control.tar.gz).

    There are advantages to each. On almost every system you go to, you should be able to open up a .deb without any trouble - 'ar', 'tar', and 'gzip' are everywhere. However, in order to get information about the package, the 'ar' archive needs to be unpacked, and then control.tar.gz. That can be time-consuming on a local machine, and in order to get information from a remote package, you need to download the whole thing.

    RPMs, though, need a special utility, albeit small, to convert the archive into standard 'cpio' format. On the other hand, you only need to download the first few thousand bytes of a remote RPM to know everything about it.

    What *really* makes .debs better than RPMs in many cases(and I apologize if you disagree - this is just in my experience) is the time spent by the maintainer. Red Hat simply can *not* put a lot of effort into each and every package. There are too many included on the CDs, and they have only so many people. On the other hand, most Debian maintainers handle one or two packages only. They generally only package stuff they're very interested in, and hence (usually) spend more time on them, and make sure that they're quality packages.

    The Debian build system is also rather complex and impressive. debhelper, debconf, you name it, it makes putting together complex, quality, policy-compliant packages easier. So not only do Debian maintainers usually care more about their packages, but they have tools at hand to significantly ease their burden.

    My six cents πŸ™‚

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 3, Informative)
    by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 @ 19:43:02 BST

    you don't _have_ to unpack a .deb - `dpkg-deb -I' will show the control file for a .deb.

    and you don't have to unpack that ar file even if you aren't on a debian system:

    -- snip --

    ar p whois_4.5.7_i386.deb control.tar.gz | tar xOzf - ./control

    Package: whois

    Version: 4.5.7

    Section: net

    Priority: standard

    Architecture: i386

    Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.3-1)

    ...

    ...

    ieure!Phaktory:/var/cache/apt/archives$

    --- snip --

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Insighful)
    by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 @ 21:12:48 BST

    I'd say the point here is that any dumb UNIX system on earth can access a .deb's internals. Nothing of such can be said of RPM (without C code anyway)

    But the real difference is in the content. DEB's are actually packaged, whereas RPMs are simply thrown together. Just ask the kdemultimedia guys, or any of the thousands who monthly switch from RPM-based to debian.

    And that's without even counting the debian scripts and programs and other various aids that exist...

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 2, Funny)
    by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 @ 23:28:40 BST

    Yes, we're well on the way to world domination.

    1) User is pissed with Windows, moves to RedHat/Mandrake/SuSE.
    2) User finds selected distro r0x0rZ.
    3) User gets a clue and notices RPM sucks.
    4) User decides to try compiling everything.
    5) User learns how to RTFM.
    6) User tires of having a shite distro and moves to Debian.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0, Redundant)
    by Linatux on Thursday, June 14 @ 04:21:00 BST
    (User Info)

    THIS user tires of windoze, tried RH ... better

    THIS user moves to SuSE ... much better

    THIS user tries to upgrade ... dog crap

    THIS user discovers Debian - nirvana (almost)

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Funny)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 @ 21:39:36 BST

    I must say, somewhat frightened...

    that that is exactly what I went through.

    Redhat first, SuSE second, then Progeny...

    Eventually I'll get on the sid bandwagon,

    but Progeny is a nice sluice gate for those

    of us without any debian user friends out there.

    It lets us pull in debian a little at a time

    before jumping head in.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 2, Insighful)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, June 14 @ 12:00:29 BST

    I've started converting lots of RPM-based users (esp. Mandrake and RedHat) to Debian in the last 2-3 years. None of them has ever looked back, and probably never will.
    Main reasons: Packages. Not the format, the content. Filesystem has something called a 'sane layout', you know where files are without even looking at the output of 'dpkg --listfiles foo'. There is a solid bug system to complain when stuff doesn't follow the Policy. And the most important of it all: The policy. Whatever happens, you know what the hell is going on.

    The switch isn't caused by 'User getting a clue', but by 'user finding out at his best friend's that debian is better'.

    That is, debian is better if you're technically competent enough to handle the power button and the keyboard without needing help...

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 02:31:58 BST

    I wouldn't go THAT far. Debian is quite nice, and I am sure as hell glad I'm out of Mandrakeland, but getting potato 2.2r2 to work with my GeForce2MX based video card was a chore. I had to find CPBotha's backports of XF4.0.X to get video working correctly. I also had to go through the installation process about 3 or 4 times to get it right, even though I've used linux for a few years now (but I'm not an expert). After figuring it out, installing debian systems seems second nature to me, but my first encounter with it was a little troublesome. To the beginner, I'd imagine debian looks pretty scarry, but once it's running, I think it's one of the best desktop OSes in the world.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 15:46:14 BST

    I recommend testing or unstable only. At least the first is quasi-stable in my eyes and doesn't have these troubles.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 2, Funny)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 @ 12:55:08 BST

    And debian unstable is at least as stable as a RH 'official' release, so testing is quite stable. (What does that say about the quality of RH? πŸ™‚

    Personally I'm glad debian takes so long in the testing stage, or we wouldn't have rock-solid releases.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 @ 23:17:49 BST

    And debian unstable is at least as stable as a RH 'official' release, so testing is quite stable.

    That's completely false. Debian unstable is definetely usable, but I would never venture to say it's as "stable" as any other dist. When I was using unstable exclusively, there would be times when I'd apt-get update/upgrade and my system would be broken severely in several areas. Sometimes, for weeks, everything would be fine, but you can't say it's stabler than a RH release, because the RH release isn't being constantly updated and altered, like debian unstable is.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Funny)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 16:50:42 BST

    Oh my God, that's *exactly* what I did. Are we all that predicable? πŸ™‚

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 20:45:04 BST

    We're not all that predictable. My first experience with Linux was at the hands of Slackware, back when it was the only "distribution" in the modern sense of the word. Then I stopped using it for a couple years because I couldn't do anything useful with it.

    When I got around to taking another look at Linux, I did some checking around and heard that there's this really scary distribution called "Debian" which is impossible for mere mortals to install and is far and away harder than any other. So I headed straight to debian.org and started downloading.

    Needless to say, I discovered that, compared to Slackware in '95, Debian was a little easier to install and it's pure joy to run and maintain. Still, though, I probably should get around to figuring out how to run an rpm-based system one of these days...

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 17:40:57 BST

    my experience exactly πŸ™‚

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1)
    by Elivs on Friday, June 22 @ 12:07:19 BST
    (User Info)

    Exactly what happened to me....

    It took about 2 years.

    1) Found that linux was more versitile and reliablet than windows.

    2) Learnt that it is oftern easier to maintain my system from CLI than GUI.

    2) Decided to try Debian because I was finding that redhat still required alot of time to maintain (even if less than windows) -ie security updates, bugfixes.

    3) Found that with debian maintaince almost goes. "apt-get update" and "apt-get install" is all I need 90% of the time. Much less tweaking to get things to work well together.

    4) Never looked back

    Elivs

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Interesting)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 @ 18:01:37 BST

    Well, this may suprise you.

    RedHat use Oracle for their database backend.

    Debian does _not_ use Oracle and we're up to #102000 and further, and using Postgres, I think.

    Not sure about Postgres, mind.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Funny)
    by Anonymous on Sunday, June 17 @ 14:58:54 BST

    Every dumb uglix system on earth can access rpm

    payloads as well:

    #!/bin/sh

    pkg=$1

    leadsize=96

    o=`expr $leadsize + 8`

    set `od -j $o -N 8 -t u1 $pkg`

    il=`expr 256 * ( 256 * ( 256 * $2 + $3 ) + $4 ) + $5`

    dl=`expr 256 * ( 256 * ( 256 * $6 + $7 ) + $8 ) + $9`

    # echo "sig il: $il dl: $dl"

    sigsize=`expr 8 + 16 * $il + $dl`

    o=`expr $o + $sigsize + ( 8 - ( $sigsize % 8 ) % 8 ) + 8`

    set `od -j $o -N 8 -t u1 $pkg`

    il=`expr 256 * ( 256 * ( 256 * $2 + $3 ) + $4 ) + $5`

    dl=`expr 256 * ( 256 * ( 256 * $6 + $7 ) + $8 ) + $9`

    # echo "hdr il: $il dl: $dl"

    hdrsize=`expr 8 + 16 * $il + $dl`

    o=`expr $o + $hdrsize`

    dd if=$pkg ibs=1 skip=$o | gunzip | cpio -itv

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: -1, Troll)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, June 14 @ 01:40:18 BST

    The real difference is that DEB works πŸ˜‰

    [ Reply ]


    ... And works WELL!! (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Thursday, June 14 @ 02:49:51 BST

    unlike rpm which shouldnt even be called a package *management* system.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: -1, Flamebait)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 15:28:35 BST

    The real difference is that debian system is good and rpm is broken. It's that simple. Should I use broken stuff, might as well go back to windows.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 @ 16:32:30 BST

    Okay, that's a bit flamish. The obvious comeback is that Debian users all have their heads up their politically-fanatical asses. I believe that they *just* now got Mozilla?

    Has xv managed to trickle its way into Debian yet?

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 15:48:44 BST

    What about the conectiva project to combine rpm and deb?

    http://distro.conectiva.com/projetos/42/

    http://bazar.conectiva.com.br/~godoy/apt-howto/index.html

    Does this make .rpm as good as .deb ?

    Richard Bos

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Informative)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 16:21:55 BST

    I've used APT-RPM on Mandrake - it worked wery well (when Mandrake was providing the neccesseaary files - I think they stopped now, but I might be wrong), handling all dependencies, removal of conflicting packages, yet. I have not tried source code handling, and the version I used did not have an ignore feature.


    BTW, Mandrake's urpmi/rpmdrake is in practice quite good for those tasks, although it's not nearly as sophisticated as APT. It can only handle, AFAIK, requires, and not conflicts requiring removal, but that's generally all that's needed

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, June 18 @ 21:31:06 BST

    I think that the new apt that mandrake has can use the hdlist-files that urpmi uses and then you will not need for them to provide anything special.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: -1, Redundant)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 18:37:25 BST

    I think the differences between rpm's and deb's is not really the format or name or options, but the main difference are the apps that handle them

    Now red carpet is out, and that handles rpm's dependencies like apt-get so u can upgrade packages at ease

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 19:07:31 BST

    I'm a real Debian user. can't say it any other way...


    Yesterday i was curious to that strange thing called Redhat, so I installed it on top of my Debian system. Never again, Debian is now back up, and apt-get is getting all those kewl new .deb's (long live broadband :o)


    But anyway, what's the real difference between .deb's and rpm's?


    Once you use deb's, you don't want (or need) anything else. It's so fscking easy, it makes you lazy. Rpm's are just crap at dependancy's, and Redhat doesn't have anything close to the ease of dpkg.

    Anyone who still uses rpm's, just try debian. I'll bet you'll never want anything else!

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: -1)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 @ 04:51:13 BST

    But anyway, what's the real difference between .deb's and rpm's?


    Once you use deb's, you don't want (or need) anything else. It's so fscking easy, it makes you lazy. Rpm's are just crap at dependancy's, and Redhat doesn't have anything close to the ease of dpkg.

    Sounds like you're describing the differences between apt-get and rpm, not .deb and .rpm, and throwing the attitudes of two camps of package maintainers.

    You haven't said a word about the difference between .debs and .rpms.

    Anyone who still uses rpm's, just try debian. I'll bet you'll never want anything else!

    I did. Then I went to using Mandrake Cooker, and currently use a modified Rock-Linux system. ROCK-Linux's setup is a bit like FreeBSD's ports tree. Once you've tried ports, you won't want apt-get anymore.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 @ 16:36:35 BST


    Once you use deb's, you don't want (or need) anything else. It's so fscking easy, it makes you lazy.

    It does. I don't use Debian myself, but I have a friend who used it for years (switched to RH this year, much happier). Got sick of stable- being obsolete, moved to unstable-, got sick of things breaking on his system constantly at every update ("It's easy to whack enter three times without paying much attention and wipe out your working XFree!").

    Now, there are RPM clients that autoget dependencies, like Red Carpet and whatnot. But frankly, I *like* having to get each one and knowing *what* I'm doing to my system. Plain vanilla rpm for me, and I like it a lot more than .deb clients.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Monday, January 21 @ 01:35:08 GMT

    i disagree . If you really like

    finding and getting what u want why

    r u not running slackware ?

    rpms is just dependency hunting especially

    the method your talking about,

    and to add i have used RH before from ver 5

    and .deb's bury .rpm's

    debian developers you are kings !

    this flava o linux shocks and rawks πŸ™‚

    [ Reply ]


    So, 1) Policy, and 2) What else? (Score: 2, Insighful)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 20:56:20 BST

    The one thing everyone is agreeing on is policy. Debian fits together a lot better because of its very careful policy regarding file locations, configuration, dependency naming, virtual packages, etc.

    The nice thing about .debs is that most of them - even third-party ones - actually follow this policy, so a random .deb is likely to work.

    RPM is known to be more of a mess. It appears that the LSB could learn a lot from the Debian policy document.

    However, imagine a fantasy land where all the gaps in RPM standards are filled by a sensible packaging policy - be it the Debian policy or an equivalent LSB policy.

    What, then, are the remaining differences between .deb and .rpm? Is there any actual conflict between what existing RPM policy there is, and the Debian policy? What differences are enforced by the tools and formats?

    One big difference I am aware of is that RPMs tend to declare dependencies on files, like /usr/lib/sendmail rather than a virtual package like mail-transport-agent.

    Also, I seem to recall that RPM installation is supposed to be totally non-interactive. No pausing and asking questions like dpkg does.

    Does RPM support an apt-listchanges equivalent?

    While I'm at it, let me mention my (least) favourite failure in the Debian packaging tools: inadequate logging.

    I want all those installation messages and alerts to be archived somewhere - preferably for the life of the package installation. I want to be able to ask, in response to "what happened to $FOO? It worked on Tuesday but is totally broken today!", for a list of changes made (debconf and package installs) since Tuesday.

    I also want all removed or replaced packages to be kept for some configurable time so I can roll back to a known working version even if ftp.debian.org has deleted it.

    This is more of a tool issue than a package-format issue, but does RPM handle these things any better?

    [ Reply ]


    Re: So, 1) Policy, and 2) What else? (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 15 @ 22:45:41 BST

    That is my biggest problem too.. I want my .deb installs to be logged.

    One thing that I dont see mentioned is the fact of the ease which a debian user keeps their system up to date.

    When I used to use Redhat/Mandrake, I seldom would upgrade anything unless it was security related. Chances are if there was a security problem with a 3rd party package you wouldnt even know about the security problem.

    Now that I am using Debian, I will update EVERY package within a day of a new release. Best part is how easy it is.. (For those RPM'ers out there.. it is two commands or one menu driven system..)

    [ Reply ]


    Re: So, 1) Policy, and 2) What else? (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 @ 04:02:09 BST

    Using red-carpet you have a nice GUI to handle deps and conflicts. No commands or silly text-interface menu. Wake up! If Linux should succeed you will need to get rid of the console (although I love it).

    My 2 cents....

    [ Reply ]


    Re: So, 1) Policy, and 2) What else? (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 @ 08:30:19 BST

    On the contrary, I think that the console is one of the strongest UIs there is. It lets you communicate with your computer via language, not pointing like monkeys do.

    I think what we need is more development of the command line as an interface... put it in more places and make applications that use it more. If you've ever played with xmlterm that's based on mozilla (I think) you'll see what I mean; it's a little under developed as an idea, but it's in the right direction. You basically type something similar to 'cat image.jpg' and it displays it inline in the terminal; very cool I think.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: So, 1) Policy, and 2) What else? (Score: -1)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 @ 16:46:57 BST

    On the contrary, I think that the console is one of the strongest UIs there is. It lets you communicate with your computer via language, not pointing like monkeys do.

    Not an argument. Name-calling. While I do agree with you to some degree, you aren't helping your point.

    I think what we need is more development of the command line as an interface... put it in more places and make applications that use it more.

    No, I think we need the GUI to have a more than half-assed way of tying application-to-application data interchange together (a la pipes) and have better, more standardized keyboard shortcuts (so I can use the keyboard *or* the mouse).

    If you've ever played with xmlterm that's based on mozilla (I think) you'll see what I mean; it's a little under developed as an idea, but it's in the right direction. You basically type something similar to 'cat image.jpg' and it displays it inline in the terminal; very cool I think.

    XMLterm is, IMHO, an incredibly inefficient piece of crap -- the CLI equivalent of MS's Explorer. What's wrong with *existing* UNIX image viewers, including ones that work in the console? If you're in X, use xv, feh, gqview, or whatever floats your boat. If in the console, use some svgalib, fbcon, or GGI based viewer. What happened to "small tools that do one thing well?"

    [ Reply ]


    Re: So, 1) Policy, and 2) What else? (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, June 22 @ 02:35:09 BST

    On the contrary, I think that the console is one of the strongest UIs there is. It lets you communicate with your computer via language, not pointing like monkeys do.

    ----

    Which, when looking at ximian shows what a lot of end users are like ^_^ (nice theme though)

    A lot of end users unfortunately are just monkeys pointing and clicking.

    humans = evolution/devolution catch 22.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: So, 1) Policy, and 2) What else? (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Sunday, June 17 @ 20:06:55 BST

    I know it's not the same as keeping track of what you did, but if you install apt-listchanges and get it to email to root, you're already halfway to knowing what it was in that last upgrade that killed your system. Personally, I almost never have problems that don't show up at install time or shortly thereafter, so I tend to fix things while they're still fresh in my mind. Keeping a notebook handy to jot things down in helps, too.

    Keeping a log isn't just something you do on the computer, especially not when you upgrade regularly. Makes it a heck of a lot easier to work out later what your rationale for choosing option 'foo' was.

    Oh, another thing: ppl have been talking about how debs prompt for user input. Whatever happened to the debconf priority question? Or are there many "critical" questions in a standard install?

    [ Reply ]


    debconf; why we must NOT standardize (Score: 3, Interesting)
    by hazelsct (hazelscq@erols.com) on Friday, June 15 @ 21:09:31 BST
    (User Info) http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/

    I'll second most of the opinions posted until now, and emphasize one point of particular importance to me: debconf.

    For the non-Debian users, debconf is the Grand Unified Install Shield Wizard (no offense to the debconf authors, that's the closest external equivalent I could think of) of the entire distribution. When you get 200 packages, between the download and install steps, they are all scanned for configuration information, and configuration questions will be asked for each one. This covers everything from which X driver to use, to which Kerberos realm you live in, to where you downloaded the RealPlayer RPM (so the Debian installer package can intelligently unpack it in a Debian-friendly way).

    Debconf is highly configurable too. The questions are asked via one of four different frontends determined by the user (text, editor, dialog, slang; choose noninteractive to avoid the questions and use default answers; there used to be gtk+ and Progeny has a gnome control panel frontend). And there are four levels of qustion priorities: low, medium, high and critical; the user chooses below which level to accept default answers. And it's internationalized: the package can have question text in multiple languages and the closest one to the users' will be displayed automagically.

    No other distribution or package format of any kind, free or proprietary, has anything like this, and it is one of Debian's great strengths.

    Furthermore, it shows why we must NOT standardize around a particular format. If we had stardardized around an earlier .deb format, we could not have added the debconf system (with some major kludges).

    So yes, Debian has the best packages because seven hundred developers put in the time to make them that way, or if they don't, they're shamed with release-critical bugs and their packages get excluded from stable. But there are important feature differences as well, which make it easier to write packages (update-rc.d and update-alternatives were mentioned), and which make .deb a vastly more powerful package format for the end-user than any other.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 3, Insighful)
    by sEEKz on Saturday, June 16 @ 12:12:43 BST
    (User Info)

    It's not only in the package format it is in the system which supports it.

    One of the strongest differences I find, is managebillity.

    The Easiest way is to demonstrate it with an example. Recently the BIND-8.2 bug was discovererd, well I had a couple of Debian (potato r2) servers running this version, only thing I had to do on these machines was:

    # apt-get update

    # apt-get install bind (could be upgrade though)

    I did this on about 6 servers in 15 minutes or so (they all had ISDN, that's why it took so long πŸ™‚

    I also had a red hat 5.2 machine somewhere running, well upgrading sucks, I first had to know what the exact name of the package was by going onto the ftp server and look for it's exact name. next thing I had to do:

    # rpm -U ftp://up....../bind-x.rpm

    this also took me about 15 minutes.

    I don't have this problem with dpkg/apt, it knows where packages are stored, hence you can give multiple locations, wich makes it possible when one location fails it can look on another which has the same packages. This only works of course if you've got it configured.

    I have to admit if i worked more with Red Hat I knew the location by forehand, but still had to look for the exact name of the package before I had to install it. This is something I don't want to do, it takes a lot of time and it is easy to make mistakes.

    Another thing pops here up and that's rpm *only* supports installing from file or ftp, apt knows file, ftp, http, nfs (well any kind of network sharing linux knows of), cdrom, copy.

    Debian Package Hackers: Keep up the good work!

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: -1)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 @ 16:41:10 BST

    Another thing pops here up and that's rpm *only* supports installing from file or ftp, apt knows file, ftp, http, nfs (well any kind of network sharing linux knows of), cdrom, copy.

    What are you *talking* about? nfs, cdrom? If you have them mounted, why the *hell* would RPM not work with them? That's just plain FUD!

    Also, if I'm using ftp or http, I'd much rather use wget (to be fair, I'm on a modem, not broadband), which, I will wager, is a lot more smart and stubborn than apt-get.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1)
    by Tupper on Friday, June 22 @ 20:15:22 BST
    (User Info)

    What are you *talking* about? nfs, cdrom? If you have them mounted, why the *hell* would RPM not work with them?

    What apt does here is mount the media for you. Thats no big deal for NFS, but its helpful for CDROMs. If I want to install foo, it tells me to insert CD #3.

    I agree its no big deal.

    Cheers,
    Tupper

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 0)
    by Anonymous on Friday, September 14 @ 21:08:29 BST

    No... rpm(8) works with with any mounted filesystem, ftp *and also* http.

    [ Reply ]


    .deb's are useable without package-managers (Score: 1, Informative)
    by Anonymous on Saturday, June 16 @ 17:11:02 BST

    Ever tried to get the content of an package

    on solaris, or when your computer is

    screwed up, or when starting from some rescue

    disk? With .rpm one can forget it.

    There might be some programs zu unpack rpm,

    but one can more easily install rpm itself.

    With .deb you do

    ar -x $DEBNFILE

    tar -xzf data.tar.gz

    and you have it.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: -1, Offtopic)
    by d00d on Friday, June 22 @ 22:16:03 BST
    (User Info) http://www.getyouriso.org/

    this is a test

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1, Informative)
    by wichert on Tuesday, October 30 @ 12:24:30 GMT
    (User Info)

    One of the interesting differences that almost

    nobody notices is the way maintainer scripts are

    handled. Both package formats have similar scripts,

    but the moments during the package installation/upgrade/removal processes they are called are different. The ordering dpkg uses

    guarantees that packages can finetune things at

    various essential moments and handle rollback on

    errors cleanly. For rpm that is not possible.

    [ Reply ]


    Re: What are the *real* .deb and .rpm differences (Score: 1)
    by roady on Wednesday, November 14 @ 05:17:44 GMT
    (User Info) http://www.server101.com/

    The real benefit that rpm has over dpkg/deb/whatever you want to call it, IMHO is rpmlib. Which makes it trivial to develop applications which install rpms, query the rpm db, etc, etc, etc. dpkg lacks this bigtime, which is the only thing holding it back from being a superior packaging format/tool.

    [ Reply ]


    Based on: PHP-Nuke

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest Β© 2000 by Debian Planet

    You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php.