From rick Sun May 4 20:24:43 2003 Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 20:24:43 -0700 To: buug@weak.org Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with [Hoping none of this comes across as harsh; it's just that you hit a number of points that I've been trying to educate people on.] Quoting Michael Paoli (michael1cat@yahoo.com): > Many (most? :-)) would argue that Debian's packaging system is > superior to RPMs ... This is vague. Moreover, it commits a category error, in as much as Debian's package system can be used with RPMs -- either on Debian or on other distributions including Red Hat. Please read: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/debian-policy Salient points: (1) There's nothing the least bit wrong with either the RPM package format or the rpm package-handling tool. (2) What is primarily distinctive about Debian is neither its package format nor its package-handling tools, but rather its _policy_ -- a term with a technical meaning in this context, extensively defined in the Debian Policy document (http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/), and strictly enforced upon package maintainers by automated package-checking software. > ...but RPMs are the de facto (and LSB) standard for LINUX > distributions. Honestly, this turns out to be just about semantically null: When interpreted literally, it's arguably true, but seems to say a great deal more than it actually does. > Debian does support installation of RPM packages in one of two ways: > A) recommended method - use the Debian package alien - it will handle > RPM packages and track them within the Debian package management > system. B) One can install rpm and its requisite libraries and use > rpm itself on Debian - this is however generally not recommended, as > the Debian package management system will be unaware of packages > handled through that means. This is true, but, since you mentioned LSB, I'm surprised you didn't also mention the Debian "lsb" package, installation of which more-or-less ensures full LSB v. 1.2 compliance. It's kind of a core-structure shim with a list of 28 dependencies that collectively furnish all required support for the full LSB spec: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/misc/lsb.html I say "more or less" because it's not technically LSB-certified through passage of official test suites, but reportedly does the job. > And my random comment - who'd want RPMs on Debian anyway? Most > anything anyone would ever want is already available an packaged as a > native Debian package anyway. :-) Over 8000 packages on the "stable" branch; over 11000 on the "testing" and "unstable" ones. My production servers track the "testing" branch. > Extensive (balanced and comprehensive) survey techniques.... Hah hah! You slay me. You really do. > Other random comments: Debian isn't necessarily the easiest LINUX > distribution to install (not necessarily a top recommendation for a > LINUX/UNIX newbie if they're going to install it themselves > unassisted). This distressingly common erroneous comment reflects the nearly universal lack of comprehension that Debian can be installed through your choice of about a dozen different installer programs, which differ very widely -- and a lack of comprehension of the fact that Debian is a system architecture and maintenance regime, _not_ a particular installer program. Thus, for example, if you use Knoppix as your installer program (which means you're on x86 and wish to get a "kitchen sink" installation), Debian _is_ just about the easiest Linux distribution to install: The Knoppix installer script does unsurpassed and totally automated hardware recognition, and asks a bare minimum of questions. (By the same token, expert users would find it lacking in flexibility.) No matter whether you use the Knoppix installer, the Progeny Graphical Installer ISO, the Xandros Desktop OS installer, the Libranet installer, the (somewhat obsolete but still usable) Stormix installer, or the much-maligned but highly flexible plain-vanilla official Debian installer, what results at the end is Debian -- in any meaningful sense. -- Cheers, "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate Rick Moen those who do. And, for the people who like country music, rick@linuxmafia.com denigrate means 'put down'." -- Bob Newhart From: nick@zork.net (Nick Moffitt) To: buug@weak.org Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 19:52:27 -0700 Subject: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with begin Michael Paoli quotation: > --- mikron wrote: > > 1) How does debian stack up to rpm based distros? does it use > > runlevels, or is it more bsd like in startup/shutdown? > Debian has a rock solid excellent packaging system - but it's not > RPM. Many (most? :-)) would argue that Debian's packaging system is > superior to RPMs ... but RPMs are the de facto (and LSB) standard > for LINUX distributions. Bullshit. Debian's packages are a pain in the ass, and have no real benefit over RPM. What Debian wins at is package *policy*. They make sure that all the packages are created in a consistent unified manner, making tools like apt even *possible*. Apt is not the package manager -- it's just a downloader and dependency resolver. It's an amazing tool, but it makes use of the fact that debian is VERY PICKY about packaging policy. -- end From rick Sun May 4 20:42:24 2003 Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 20:42:24 -0700 To: buug@weak.org Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick@zork.net): > Bullshit. Debian's packages are a pain in the ass, and have no real > benefit over RPM. What Debian wins at is package *policy*. They make > sure that all the packages are created in a consistent unified manner, > making tools like apt even *possible*. > > Apt is not the package manager -- it's just a downloader and > dependency resolver. It's an amazing tool, but it makes use of the > fact that debian is VERY PICKY about packaging policy. Strongly concur. This is the main point I try to get across in http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/debian-policy . To commenting further (and my real reason for AOLing your post), the obnoxiously common notion that the rpm package format somehow comprises a "standard" is pretty much clueless from top to bottom: Just pulling down a *.i386.rpm package from J. Random Archive and doing "rpm -Uvh foo.i386.rpm" in expectation of success -- merely because you run _some_ rpm-based distribution for Intel -- is an excellent way to fux0r your system, and is a common bonehead error among new users. In fact, only if the package is built for specifically _both_ your particular distribution _and_ its distribution release version are you reasonably likely to be able to install it -- dependencies permitting. _LSB_ qualifies as a "standard" in the sense of the term contemplated. RPM is merely a file format, variously implemented. -- Cheers, find / -user your -name base -print | xargs chown us:us Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com From: Nick Moffitt To: buug@weak.org Subject: Re: [buug] tired of redhat, and i want something new to play with Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 20:58:52 -0700 begin Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere quotation: > _LSB_ qualifies as a "standard" in the sense of the term contemplated. > RPM is merely a file format, variously implemented. In one regard, debian's package format is somewhat more predictably engineered, such that one can claim that it's a more "standard" system. Basically any binary package format consists of two things: a filesystem archive (the files to be installed, installation clean-up scripts to be run, etc) and a collection of metadata (dependency lists, version info, maintainer e-mail etc.). In the case of dpkg, the format is a POSIX-standard "ar" archive of the sort used for static libraries. This "ar" file has two tar files inside of it: control.tar.gz and data.tar.gz. The files inside each of these are all shell scripts, perl scripts, files to be installed, etc. You could unpack and install a debian binary package on any Linux system using standard Unix tools. In fact, most of the arguments about which packaging tool is older (rpm or dpkg) are often resolved with the explanation "When rpm was written, dpkg was still a shell script". RPM on the other hand, as a file format, takes a different approach. Basically it's a cpio archive with a big binary dump of a C struct on the front. You basically have to yank values out based on their position as though it were a low-level media format or something. But here's the clincher: this data structure changes in size and position of its members between revisions of the rpm format on Red Hat alone, and companies like SuSE have packaged and released rpm tools with metadata structs that differ from any and all Red Hat RPMs. That is to say, RPM is *not* a standard even as an on-disk file format. What the LSB does is not just standardize on RPM (which only means that the rpm installer tool has to be present -- it doesn't mean that the whole OS needs to *use* RPM for its packages), it specifically defines a particular *version* of the rpm suite and file format. This means that Red Hat likely has to package *two* copies of the rpm tool: one for its latest-and-greatest hacked up format, and one for the LSB. -- end