[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RH4.2?
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Ira Abramov wrote:
> > "RPM sucks" ?
> nope. RPM has yet to be implemented as flags inside the binaries
> themselves to be utterly accurate and usefull. the fact is it will sucseed
> better on systems like Sun where most users get ready-made updates from
> the vendor and don't compile their own.
First of all, on my Sun, SGI and Alpha systems, which do include various
package management utils, I still prefer compiling my own. Ira, you
yourself said you install an RPM, then compile the binary from scratch and
replace the one that came with the RPM.
Now, while package management methods, including RPM, do have advantages
(tidy systems, saves time, etc), RPM is still pretty flakey. The reason
the whole discussion about upgrading to 4.2 started was that I tried
upgrading to a newer pam, which required a newer pamconfig, which in turn
required the version of pam I was trying to install. Thus making them both
un-upgradable (I am _not_ going to force no-dependencies on something that
can lock me out of my system).
I seriously doubt every Linux binary will ever be linked against
libRPMversion, although the idea is tempting. But when there's so many
different ways to compile Apache (or ls for that matter), it's near
impossible ("GNU ls v2.11.3.2.2232.nocol.8bit.static.ncurses.ELF..."). I'm
sure RPM _will_ advance more, and I'm not saying it's not useful, but
tracking every possible version of every binary/library, well...
Bye,
-Yaron.