Debian's apt-get vs Mandrake's urpmi? 238
Deven Phillips asks: "I have been using Linux-Mandrake for quite a while now, and I wanted to know what Slashdotters think of the two rival package management systems available for Mandrake: apt and urpmi. I have been playing with both (apt is available in the Contribs section), and I have to say that so far urpmi is winning. I have always heard that apt-get is the best, so I am surprised by my conclusions. Am I missing something? Is apt for RPM not as mature as the deb counterpart?" I, for one, would have liked to have heard the reasons as to why Deven feels that urpmi is superior, but maybe there are a few of you out there who feel the same way, that can communicate this as well as he can. For those of you who have tried both, what features do you like out of the two of them, and which tool serves your needs the best?
pkg_add (Score:3)
Moderators: I _hope_ you see the satire.
Mark Duell
pfffft (Score:4)
Attack! (Score:1)
hmm, everyone's a winner (Score:5)
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
urpmi vs apt-get (Score:1)
Urpmi is less succeptable to broken dependancies than apt-get is, due to better design. Urpmi is also easier to integrate into a base distro than rpm due to the way the package database is maintained.
Both have their strengths and weaknesses but for me, urpmi is my package management system of choice.
Another one... (Score:5)
Re:pkg_add (Score:1)
Massochism is fine in the bedroom, but please keep the door closed so I don't have to watch. Thanks.
Two Things (Score:2)
2) Lets not forget the ports collection on FreeBSD. Installing a port is as easy as:
locate (portname)
cd /user/ports/(area)/(portname)
make install
All dependancies addressed for you. The port tree can be kept up to date with cvs. It's a great system. The maintainers seem to keep it relatively up to date, but just far enough behind that there are very few security scares.
Re:who cares? (Score:1)
I would also like to know... (Score:4)
Is gnome better than KDE?
Is AMD better than Intel?
Is Mandrake better than RedHat?
Is red better than blue?
OK, enough for now... Let the flames begin.
Mandrake Update (Score:2)
Re:Two Things (Score:1)
Debian is more than apt (Score:5)
With apt, you not only get your package dependencies solved along with the latest software, you get the work that was put in to making Debian a coherent system that adheres to the Debian policy. You get a specific maintainer for each package who will (almost) always respond promptly to emails about bugs and such. You can get a ton of help on Debian's mailing lists. You yourself can even become a maintainer if you've got the gusto to do so. Granted, Mandrake covers a lot of these areas (and has a nicer install) but Debian feels like a system, where every other distro I tried just felt like a bunch of packages. Granted, I haven't tried Mandrake in a while, but somehow I just don't think what they're doing will match up to Debian's volunteer maintainer model, even now.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Re:Mandrake Update (Score:1)
Also, apt-get has the option to download and compile source packages. I think it takes a couple more steps than the ports system, but it's not terribly complicated AFAIK (anyone wi/ more deb experience want to comment?)
What people forget... (Score:5)
All Debian packages are put together by volounteers. Of course, some get paid. But I don't know of any that are currently getting paid, that wern't volounteers first. apt-get is just a tool. What *really* makes the difference is the time spent on the packages themselves. Mandrake, Red Hat, and the rest only have so many people. Each has to take care of dozens of packages. They just can't spend as much time on them. In Debian, most of the ~7000 current packages, most maintainers just take care of two or three related packages. They usually use them, too. So most maintainers take their time and do things right.
I'm not saying Red Hat or Mandrake arn't any good
That being said, apt-get was written from the ground up with dpkg in mind. It can be ported to use rpm(obviously), but I don't doubt that urpmi works better(when it comes to dealing with rpms)
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
My experiment with urpmi is very negative! (Score:2)
I'm using Mandrake 8.0, I've update quite a few packages from Mandrake's Cooker and now my systems doesn't work very well: I have to tell it twice otherwise it won't shutdown, I can't hear music anymore, etc...
But who is the culprit urpmi or the packages?
It's hard to tell!
BTW I'm currently trying to uprade urpmi to see if it will works better: no luck urpmi downloads everything then I get "Installation failed" the file "XXX.rpm" doesn't exist even if I see that the file was previously downloaded! Aaaarrrggg...
I can probably fix all these problem, but it is going to cost me a lot of time and I'm tired of always fixing something in the Linux/Mandrake configuration.. Maybe I'm ready for Debian..
Re:I would also like to know... (Score:2)
Yes
Yes
Probably
Yes
Definately
--Ben
Re:I would also like to know... (Score:2)
Somehow, I don't feel that "apt vs. urpmi" has gotten as much airtime as the aforementioned conflicts..."
Personally, I'd like to see the merits and demerits of both listed and "discussed".
Ahh... so THIS is VA Linux's new revenue model: (Score:1)
Let the trolls submit Ask Slashdot questions to inflate the page views. This might actually work!
Re:Mandrakes carp tho (Score:1)
Re:Two Things (Score:1)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-0106/msg03510
Re:urpmi vs apt-get (Score:1)
I have to disagree. Each is only as good as the packages being installed. Why? Because the package provides the dependancy info.
If you use apt-get and have dependancy trouble it's likely that your packages are sh*t. If you use apt-get to install and manage official debian packages you will rarely encounter trouble. I have maintained a debian box with apt-get for going on 4 years, doing monthly "apt-get upgrade" and "apt-get dist-upgrade" sessions that have carried it from Debian version 2.0 through 2.3(unstable) through the years with no reinstall.
It's the package maintainers who ultimately determine how well it works because it's the dependency info in the packages that make or break your experience.
-Ben
jesus (Score:2)
Re:I would also like to know... (Score:1)
Is LEGO better than K'Nex?
upgrade to new version of the distribution (Score:2)
urpmi works great to install a new package. But I never got it to upgrade the distribution. Going from Mandrake 7.0 to Mandrake 7.1 for example, was always very complicated. It was not working right when I added different repository, like the kde newest version.
I never had those problems with Debian. I started with potato and upgraded to woody with no pain at all. Not even a reboot. I now have the freashed kde available and it is very easy to keep up with what is new.
Thought I may have been a poor user of urpmi, it's lake of upgrade capability was the key in my decision to switch.
Re:Another one... (Score:1)
Possibly there is a curse.
apt-get/dselect (Score:4)
I guess you should probably use the package installer that's native to the distribution you're using. That way you can be sure to get all the right bits, with the correct libs, etc...
The good thing with debian is that almost everything you're likely to need is right there on their servers, you don't have to go and find the packages on some server somewhere. For example I wanted to install apache and squid last week, I typed one command, it downloaded all the stuff, and within a minute or two of waiting for the downloads (I didn't have to type anything) both were configured and running. If your system is also that easy, then stick with it.
emacs team got their butts kicked ... (Score:1)
That word they say 'innovation' (Score:1)
Re:Debian is more than apt (Score:2)
Re:pkg_add (Score:1)
urpmi has some problems (Score:1)
urpmi has been useless for me on both of my Mandrake 8 boxen, after about a week's worth of casual use. (It dies in some sort of a perl dependency, to be specific.) Consequently, rpmdrake is also hosed.
I'm not the only one, either... check out the horror stories on MandrakeForum [mandrakeforum.org].
On the bright side, rpmdrake is the first well-designed GUI package manager that I have laid eyes on. When it works, it works well. I hope they iron out the bugs for mdk 8.1.
Re:I would also like to know... (Score:2)
The moderators can't read (Score:2)
Hmm.
Yet this comment gets moderated as Informative, and Insightful. Makes you wonder if the moderators even bother to read the articles.
apt-get versus dselect (Score:2)
--
Re:Debian is more than apt (Score:5)
But isn't that what the whole concept of "distribution" was supposed to mean? After all, what makes or breaks the operating system isn't necessarily how good _it_ is, but how well it "enables" the use of the software that is used for *task*.
On that note, while I really think apt is killer I also agree that the true success behind it is the work done by the package maintainers.
Flame me all you want but I think what's really needed is some definitive standard for packages similar to the Win-world Installshield idea. There should be some way for the install routine (make install?) to check some DB (linux has a few of those around, right?) and see if a particular app is installed and where. Think the windows registry but for info purposes only so that the install can be more efficient. This would allow me to automate the use *.deb, *.rpm or compile my own and still keep track of apps and dependencies..
my beef w/ mandrake (Score:3)
Re:Debian is more than apt (Score:3)
It's been my experience that bugfixes and security hole plugs are published in the stable tree before I even get e-mails about them from various security lists.
Trust in Debian. Debian is your friend.
Aren't we being a little closed-minded here? (Score:4)
While I would have to agree with the crowds of Debian users here that apt-get is indeed a superior tool to whatever Mandrake is using these days, I would have to disagree on the ultimate choice of best software package management system.
Now, Linux is a great operating system in general, and I love the apt-get part of Debian in particular, but why does it have to be on the command line? I hardly think that the average person, say, my grandfather, for example, would be able to deal with learning all the arcane aspects of a command line utility. To most, it is just too frustrating, poorly documented, and complicated. What we really need in a modern operating system is a package manager that the average Joe or my grandfather could use.
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Windows Update yet? Not only is it a fully graphical tool, but it automatically detects what software your computer needs, without sending that information to a third party, and then gives you an easy install wizard to update everything. Sure, some things may require a reboot, but there is a lot of Linux software that also requires a reboot to function properly. Personally, I think it is a far superior tool to apt-get, because it can also make recommendations on what kind of cool new screen saver you might want to check out, or update DirectX to improve your gaming framerates and such.
And, of course, it is very handy for patching all those security holes that invariably pop up in MS software, such as the notorious Outlook holes that have caused more than one system administrator a headache. Think about it, if an update tool is easy enough for the average user to utilize, then we won't have to worry about upgrading everyone's Linux machines when the latest BIND or Sendmail exploit hits Bugtraq. It would greatly improve the image of Open Source software when no one goes on a massive hacking spree and compromises a ton of machines for their DDoS wars.
Re:My experiment with urpmi is very negative! (Score:3)
It's hard to tell!
Urpmi is just a transport mechanism. If your system is unstable, then it's the unstable software you installed causing you grief. If the packages downloaded from the site correctly and installed, then URPMI did it's job.
Re:Debian is more than apt (Score:2)
I agree completely. I bitched about that same thing in a thread in another article a while back, pointing out that the version of sendmail that ships with stable is older than sand and the version of postgresql is the horrific 6.5 and that Debian required quite a bit of tarballing as a result of the ancient versions of the software represented by the packages in stable, but not surprisingly enough my post was modded down as "troll". Obviously by some clueless individual who doesn't understand that the debianized sendmail segfaults under high loads due to a problem that was long since fixed in the 11.x sendmail series. It's essentially the same thing with postgresql, 6.5 is an unstable piece of crap, 7.1 is an incredible RDBMS. But me pointing out this and providing facts somehow constituted a "troll".
maru
"Everything Slashdot" exists (Score:2)
Slashdot.org today announced their latest Internet portal EverythingSlashdot.org which will focus on answering the legalities of everything digitial.
The strange thing about your comment is that everything.slashdot.org [slashdot.org] actually exists. It's an online information database written and edited by the world. And yes, it has a good writeup about DMCA and the politics of copy protection [everything2.com].
But be warned: The quality standards on Everything are MUCH higher than on Slashdot. In fact, E2 and Slashdot could hardly be more different [everything2.com].
Re:Debian is more than apt (Score:4)
Firstly, there are currently three different official Debians:
Potato; this is the stable variant. Just like you described, very little is updated. If it has BIND 8.2.3, and a security hole is found, but a fix is only available in BIND 9, then it'll be backported to 8.2.3. You might think that's absurd. But in Debian, "stable" means that things won't change out from underneath you. Read on.
Woody; this is the "testing" variant. New packages are uploaded daily, and already-existing packages are upgraded. Packages in Woody have been around for a while, so you should have no problems. However, this isn't "stable", so don't expect everything to be absolutely perfect all the time no matter what.
Sid; this is the "unstable" variant. When an updated package is available, it goes here before it goes anywhere else. Eventually, it'll move into Woody, but not before it's been tested well. Personally, I find Sid about as stable as most end-user Red Hat boxes. However, accidents do happen, and you should *NOT* run Sid unless you know how to fix things. Yes, this includes having a boot/root rescue diskette, and knowing how to use it.
Now, if you run a server, you should run Potato. That's what it's meant for. But you need BIND 9? XFree86 4.x? No problem, there are several options. The first is to add a "deb-src" line pointing to Sid or Woody, in
The other option is to get unoffical
Frankly, if you're running a server, you probably shouldn't be using the latest version of BIND or Sendmail or Apache or whatever. You should probably be running a version that's older and more "secure". Like I said, any security fixes are backported to the version that's in Potato, and are installed when you 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade'.
Have a good day
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Freq (Score:2)
well, in a battle of "which sounds stupider"... (Score:5)
--
Old package versions... (Score:2)
What you're complaining about is Debian's extraordinarily long release cycles and its notoriously old packages when any given Debian distro is finally released. However, there are some extenuating circumstances you've failed to mention or notice (I honestly don't know which).
Overall, I think Debian's package-management system is excellent. It only took one ill-fated attempt to add XFree86 to a Red Hat machine to convince me that rpm's file-based dependencies are inferior to dpkg's package-based dependencies.
what about dselect? (Score:3)
i've used dselect since my first Debian installation in 1997, which also happened to be my first Linux.
i like getting a description of the package, being able to key-word search through the descriptions since i don't always already know what something is called.
surely there is enough room in this idea-space for everyone to use the one they like?
Bob-
Re:Debian is more than apt (Score:3)
apt-get only gets the packages, dpkg is the package management utility, dselect is a front end GUI to dpkg. dpkg maintains its database of package stati in
maru
Re:I would also like to know... (Score:2)
Yes, but xemacs is better than both.
Is red better than blue?
Red is most definately better than blue. You'd have to be a sloped-brow knuckle-dragger if you thought otherwise.
:P
Re:apt-get versus dselect (Score:2)
apt-get is great if you want to quickly install apache for some testing. 'apt-get install apache' [click, wirr] done. Also, if you get to know the package naming formats you can guess that to install mod_perl you'd do an 'apt-get install libapache-mod-perl', or libapache-mod-ssl or whatever.
I personally prefer dselect for browsing, and apt-get for quick and easy.
After just using Mandrake RPM (Score:3)
I was installing mandrake 8.0 last night, and managed to stuff up the config file for cups and my simple solution was to reload the rpm.. Or I thought it was, RPMDrake refused to delete the package (hanged big time) and there is no option to install over a corrupt file. The problem with this package was it lacked lots of features that the command line rpm has. So I downloaded the tar file from rpm.org and got a working version.
My experiences with debian (some what limited), is that sure it doesn't have all the nice GUI (or at least when I used it), but it works. I loved how it would automatically download the dependencies, and do a bloody good job.
I do like the mandrake package otherwise, such as there flashy splash screen whilst starting up.
Re:Aren't we being a little closed-minded here? (Score:5)
- Gnome-apt
- aptitude
- console-apt
- etc. etc. etc
(Check on your facts)
Apt has many front-ends, mostly on the text screen, but 'graphic' and useful.
Debian isn't targetting the average Joe Schmoe, or at least not in its current status.
Windows Update is not even comparable to apt-get, because it only updates a very small subset of the installed software. In Windows, every piece of software has its own code to update itself from the web (Except MS software, perhaps).
Windows Update does not handle libraries upgrades/etc as well as apt-get, because Windows hardly has any package management for installed libraries (apart from that useless registry list of DLL's) at all, not to mention any other shared files/resources.
In summary, Windows Update may be useful to upgrade those 4 or 5 apps you mainly use, but apt-get can upgrade any one of the ~7000 packages you potentially install (Due to conflicts, its actually probably a ~1000 less than that).
Apt-get has libraries allowing easy creation of front-ends, and various ones already exist.
Get a clue.
Re:Debian is more than apt (Score:5)
Part of policy is that every program must have a man page, which was very nice when I was first learning to use linux.
I have always had very good results from mailing the maintainers of packages. So far, I've traded emails with the maintainers of: xawtv, makedev, php4, gabber, and xserver-common (who in some cases were also the developers of the packages in question, not including miscellaneous bug reports).
I've only had to mail maintainers since I've been using the 'unstable' distribution (which has only crashed once), and it's usually just been a heads up that some library upgrade broke some other function that their code depended on. This is not a problem when dealing with the stable distribution because it does not change.
Before that, I was able to get all the help I needed from the debian IRC channels (all IRC programs come defaulted to the debian irc servers, another nice touch).
I'm sure that once I mail my latest buglet report to the maintainer of icecast-server (program is compiled with crypted password support, but configuration files default to storing non-crypted passwords) that it will be responded to promptly, and integrated into the next update of icecast.
One final bit of debian evangalization: debian (almost) invented the word Free (with a capital 'f') when talking about Free/Open/GPL software [debian.org]. All programs distributed with debian must allow redistribution, must come with source code, and must allow modification of that source code. (well, mostly- some exceptions apply). This means that I *OWN* all the software on my computer in a way that's ten times more real than any software that I've paid for (just so long as I'm willing to share).
Lest you think that debian is all a bed of roses, not all programs are up to date, packages are maintained based on whether somebody is interested or not. Sometimes the developer of one program will break other programs unless versions are kept relatively in-sync. And finally, since you didn't pay for it, you can't really complain to anyone when there is a problem. The only solution is to revert and/or retry.
All in all, I am very pleased with debian, it does it's job quietly, and does it well.
--Robert
Re:Aren't we being a little closed-minded here? (Score:5)
A Few points...
Anyway, enough diversions. I'm going back to reinstalling Debian a machine that was once running Mandrake for a while. "urpmi", although nice, didn't hold a candle to "apt-get" -- and this is precisely the reason I'm switching the distro back. Mandrake's stuff does have an easy enough graphical frontend, however.
Really quick, however... my largest complaints with urpmi are, as follows:
For what it's worth, console-apt (and using apt-get by itself too, of course) usually suffices for me, but I would love to see a useable GTK+ based frontend for Debian's package system one of these days. I think a lot of other people would like that as well.
If we had the concepts of Red Carpet, the slickness of Windows Update, the widespread use of urpmi, and the power of apt-get all rolled into one tool, it would truly be the killer upgrade apt -- err -- I mean app. (:
A History of Red versus Blue: (Score:5)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
"Red! No, blue! Aaaaahhhh!"
Red: 1, Blue: 0
The Matrix:
"Take the Blue pill and you wake up and believe whatever you want to believe. Take the Red pill and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."
Red: 2, Blue: 0
Pokemon:
Charizard, a fire pokemon, is weak to Blastoise, a water pokemon
Red: 2, Blue: 1
Google:
Searches for "red": 23.6 million
Searches for "blue": 17.3 million
Red: 3, Blue: 1
Cold War:
Red = Commie Bastards!
Blue = Good Americans!
Red: 3, Blue: 2
It seems that Red has still eaked out a narrow win over blue... For this time!
-Ted
Re:Cant Upgrade if Mixing Stable/Unstable/Testing (Score:2)
Yes you can mix Stable/Unstable/Testing.` (Score:2)
I have put all of my system packages on "hold" , so they do not get changed at all. Then if I want something new and improved, like galeon, I just hit `+' in dselect to select galeon, and it shows me a list of packages which I would have to upgrade if I want galeon. I inspect it and decide whether to unhold them or not. Easy.
Regard,
Zooko
Re:Old package versions... (Score:2)
It only took one ill-fated attempt to add XFree86 to a Red Hat machine to convince me that rpm's file-based dependencies are inferior to dpkg's package-based dependencies.
Your problem is with RedHat's(and other's) packages. RPM allows you to use package based dependencies, the difference is that RPM will automatically do file based dependencies if you don't specify a package that satisfies that dependency. It really seems to be more a problem with the tools for packaging than the RPM format as such.
Re:A History of Red versus Blue: (Score:2)
Actually, he said blue, then yellow.
Another red and blue: the boxes in "Time's Rub" by Greg Benford. No clear preference though.
Do this: (Score:2)
1) su
- type in password
2) echo "0 6 * * * root apt-get update && apt-get upgrade" >>
And you'll always get the updates.
As other people said, I've never HEARD of urpmi. There's one thing I have to give Mandrake credit, though - I learned linux off of that distrib, but that was after I was too confused on Debian's SETUP, not apt-get (that too, considering I was only on dialup, and I didn't download their CD images because I couldn't find it, being the linux-newbie I was. Cable made the difference)
Re:What people forget... (Score:2)
* Package granularity. Is libmng part of qt, or packaged seperately?
* Naming conventions. mod_php? mod_php3? apache_mod_php3? apache-mod-php? Each distribution wishes to call these things by a different name.
* Inconsistent or bad dependencies. Apps depend on SDL = 1.20 when they should probably depend on SDL >= 1.20
* Mutual dependencies. A needs B, B needs A. You can install them simultaneously to get around the problem, but logically it seems a little odd.
* Versioning conventions. Applications distributed both as numerical
Basically its a management issue. There's easily far more RPMs out there than the 6 gig in the main Debian archive, but lack of management causes inconsisteny, which leads to headaches installing apps.
That being said, apt-get was written from the ground up with dpkg in mind.
Are you sure of that? I seem to recall the apt-get team saying that the exact opposite was the case - the system was specifically designed to packaging system independent.
Re:Cant Upgrade if Mixing Stable/Unstable/Testing (Score:2)
Anyways, you're partially correct. If you want to run Potato, don't put a Woody or Sid "deb" line in
But I wasn't talking about a "deb" line
Now, 'apt-get' always gets the newest version of a package available, *if* a newer version is available. It won't replace what you have on your drive with and older version. Simple as that
Have fun
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
life isn't THAT simple... (Score:5)
Obviously, slower developement cyclus means that there is more time to take care of details... Unfortunate side-efect is that many "stable" debian packages tend to be very obsolete.
Second, there is no such thing as third-party debian package, while third-party rpm packages are abundant. Quite obviously, updating a system with tons of third-party packages is a rather difficult task.
Third, average debian user is far more knowledgable than average Mandrake user. (He has to be, simply because getting a debian system up and running is by far more difficult than doing the same thing with Linux-Mandrake.) Therefore, things which some Mandrake user reports as "evil mandrake stuff" (like: I installed some cooker packages, had to force the install, because it kept requiring some "dependencies", and guess what? now my system is broken!!!) would never be reported as such by debian users.
There is more, but I think you got the message: things aren't as simple as they look from a high debian-guru ivory tower.
As for apt-get and urpmi question, things ARE rather simple: urpmi is better than apt if you use Mandrake distro, simply because Mandrake distro and urpmi were built with each-other in mind. I can think of only two cases when using apt-get on mandrake distro makes sense:
1) ex-debianers which are familiar with apt will obviously prefer to use the known tool
2) urpmi (and co.) make a local database of all rpm repositories, and updating the DB takes some time. Therefore, apt may be a better tool for people who often update their systems using cooker rpms. (this may have been adressed already, I haven't checked lately.
In case you use Debian, there is no urpmi, so apt is definitively better.
The real question... (Score:4)
The real question is not "which package system is better?", but "which distribution does the best job of managing their releases and updates?"
I don't care what system they use - my priorities (aside from correctness issues) are:
I don't want to install 30 packages just to get PHP working. And why does every single Red Hat app seem to require Apache (RPM) and PHP (RPM)?
And avoid requiring ancient versions of, say, zlib, that won't play well with newer apps.
That is, does it present dependencies clearly and show you release notes and advisories. I'd like to know *why* Apache has been updated, so I know if it really affects me.
If I have to resort to source in an emergency, it defeats the whole point of packaging.
By the way, I'm a huge fan of source installs for apps, becuase I find them much easy to configure and upgrade than packages. But I'd love to use RPMS if it were practical.
-Loopy
heart == install? (Score:2)
Setting up the network is a part of the install process. Debian's install sucks. Mandrakes is way better. Nobody denies that.
But with a
urpmi vs. apt-get (amended) (Score:2)
Re:apt-get versus dselect (Score:2)
# apt-get update
# apt-get [upgrade | dist-upgrade]
I've now upgraded the entire system from debian 2.1 to debian 2.2.
That's why you use apt-get.
bendy
Debian testing is what you want (Score:3)
Stable: security upgrades and other REALLY solid upgrades only. You are expected to perform a dist upgrade from time to time because otherwise you will have really old packages. However, NOTHING EVER BREAKS EVER.
Testing: You get reasonably well tested updates and security updates. Your box is cutting edge. Things still don't seem to break ever, but notice ever is not capitalized anymore. This is more stable than any other distribution's stable.
Unstable: Not just cutting edge, bleeding edge. Perl may break. Dpkg may break. But mostly things will still hum along, with an occasional hiccup. Power users will want unstable on their workstations - not on production servers. This now has recent mozilla, konqueror, kword, gnumeric, and other production apps that are changing reasonably fast right now.
Re:Aren't we being a little closed-minded here? (Score:2)
This doesn't have anything to do with this I don't think. This is something that probably belongs on an apt list somewhere. I personally like the apt-get command line method, and never use the apt-get-gtk and other graphical wrappers. Besides, the "graphical" way of doing this is called dselect
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Windows Update yet? Not only is it a fully graphical tool, but it automatically detects what software your computer needs, without sending that information to a third party, and then gives you an easy install wizard to update everything.
See above comment about dselect. Same deal, no info sent to anyone, and while the install "wizard" isn't as pretty looking, it does the job.
Personally, I think it is a far superior tool to apt-get, because it can also make recommendations on what kind of cool new screen saver you might want to check out, or update DirectX to improve your gaming framerates and such.
I think this goes back to the "apt-get is not all there is to debian packaging" thread above. apt-get is just a way of interacting with dpkg, and dselect is just a way of interacting with apt-get and dpkg. Your arguments against apt-get are perfectly valid, but they don't hold water when used against the whole packaging management package (if you'll pardon the pun) of apt-get, dpkg, and dselect (and deity, aptitude, apt-get-gtk, etc).
Re:heart == install? (Score:2)
but, all personal preferance. i just thought i'd throw it out there that some of us like debian's installer.
-------
Re:pkg_add (Score:2)
Very cool. Just untar the lasts ports.tgz file into
Re:pkg_add (Score:2)
--
Re:pkg_add (Score:3)
--
Re:Aren't we being a little closed-minded here? (Score:2)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Slashdot has NEVER been an open-minded forom. Slashdot is a haven for Linux and copyleft fanatics. If you consider Slashbotters open-minded, you must consider the Taliban a haven for free-thought.
Re:what about dselect? (Score:3)
$ apt-cache show dpkg
[...]
Description: Package maintenance system for Debian
This package contains the programs which handle the installation and
removal of packages on your system.
.
The primary interface for the dpkg suite is the `dselect' program;
a more low-level and less user-friendly interface is available in
the form of the `dpkg' command.
.
In order to unpack and build Debian source packages you will need to
install the developers' package `dpkg-dev' as well as this one.
[I like] being able to key-word search through the descriptions since i don't always already know what something is called.
$ apt-cache search slashdot
bk2site - Utility to turn bookmarks into Yahoo/Slashdot like pages
gnome-applets - Various applets for GNOME panel
lg-issue38 - Issue 38 of the Linux Gazette.
libapache-mod-perl - Integration of perl with the Apache web server
surfraw - a fast unix command line interface to WWW
ticker - configurable text scroller, with slashdot and freshmeat modules
wmheadlines - Linux news website headlines integrated to windowmaker's menus
Some people like dselect (and more power to them!) but I don't even touch it any more...
--
Re:Aren't we being a little closed-minded here? (Score:2)
apt-get dist-upgrade
Reboots aren't the best metric (Score:2)
"Rebooting" is a red herring. I can obviously switch to run level 1 and do pretty much anything (short of changing the kernel), but I've killed off my computer's functionality. At that point my escape from my BIOS's POST sequence is a little Pyrrhic.
For instance, if I want to upgrade my X server, I have to kill every (non-console) program I'm using. Yeah, sshd is still up and running, but I don't run a server box, I run a workstation, so I could really care less.(If your box is primarily a network server, you're not upgrading the X server anyway; you're upgrading some network service, and the loss of *relevant* functionality is similar. I tend to segregate my servers from my workstations; if you just have one machine doing it all you might appreciate the fact that your friends can still download your mp3s while your productivity drops to zero.)
This is similar to how kids claim that their super-stable Linux box has enjoyed 14 months of uptime while their Windows box crashes weekly. Maybe so, but if your window manager or web browser crashes three times a day under Linux (not too unlikely), it has a lot more of a negative impact on your productivity and pisses you off a lot more than having to sit through a POST once in a while.
I obviously agree that Linux is lightyears ahead of Windows in terms of the granularity of service disruptions imposed on you by upgrades. I just wanted to rant a little ;)
Re:Aren't we being a little closed-minded here? (Score:2)
Just a reminder to all :
Re:Install packages (Score:2)
I like Debian. I might give friends who use Mandrake or RH some shit for doing so, but in the end, it's their choice. Debian is my choice. Why must choice be bad?
Oh yeah - the Windows users who can't make a choice, and don't understand anything about what they're doing. I don't know about you, but I've found what I like, and everyone else should be able to choose as well, not have the "one true way" shoved down their throats.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Re:apt-get versus dselect (Score:2)
That's where dselect comes in. You need dselect to select the initial packages for your box (due to its default package list, etc.). But after that initial dselect, you never really need to touch dselect again, apt-get takes care of it all.
So, to answer your question [at least from my experience], people use dselect initially to configure their box, and then apt-get to maintain it after the fact.
In addition, what I've learned to do is use dselect as a tool for searching for obscure packages I need (but don't remember the package name, etc.), and then just apt-get install packagename. Apt-get can't replace dselect in that functionality (although you *could* grep through the apt-get package lists if you felt like it, and I have), but there is really no point to running dselect after the initial install to maintain pacakges.
On the other hand, if apt-get were included on boot/rescue disks, and apt-get base_install were possible [or dinstall used a nasty apt-get instead of a clean dselect], then dselect would lose much of its standing and apt-get could eventually completely replace dselect. I, for one, hope both dselect and apt-get stay around for a long time, together, they're incredibly powerful and helpful.
---
Why package when you can bundle? NeXT/OSX (Score:2)
NeXT File bundles rule, packages drool. Friends don't let friends reinvent the M$ registry.
(troll complete. awaiting negative karma)
Re:apt-get versus dselect (Score:2)
Besides there is also better alternatives to those who doesn't like to use commandline apt-get. For example gnome-apt and console-apt.
I personally use only apt-get.
Re:Two Things (Score:2)
Anyway: reboot, single mode, login, lynx incoming.debian.org, get packages, dpkg -i *.deb, reboot =)
Re:pkg_add (Score:2)
No third party deb packages? (Score:5)
Of course there are third party Debian packages. I see project sites all the time these days offering their own deb packages. Additionally (and even better) they offer their own apt-get URLs for people who wish to use their third-party Debian packages. Currently, my sources.list includes three such lines. One for E17, one for efm, and one for gabber.
Third-party packages was also the only way to get KDE packaged for Debian until it was finally included.
Now of course, they will not be nearly as abundant as RPMs simply because of the number of RPM-based distros out there, and the ease of making RPMs as opposed to DEBs. But they are there, even if there isn't a debfind.net yet
Can it upgrade the glibc ? (Score:2)
I've been unable to upgrade from the previous glibc to the more recent one with the rpm system. I've also been quite surprised to see that the two versions of the glibc files actually share the same name (libc.so.6).
As a resultt, I can't install Mozilla 9.1 as a binary rpm. I could probably compile from source, but I think that rpms were created exactly to avoid doing that !
Does Apt-Get work better in that regard ?
Thomas Miconi
Why I switched from Mandrake to Debian (Score:2)
Then I went to upgrade my desktop box to Mandrake 7.2, and the install just croaked, repeatedly. It just would not load on my SMP, all SCSI machine. After two days of messing about without any success, I just got pissed off with it. Mandrake seemed to me to have put all the effort into surface glitz while ignoring the underlying engineering. Then I stuck a Debian CD into the drive, and it just booted, loaded, and ran, and I've never looked back.
I don't want glitzy GUI interfaces; I want solid engineering that works every day. Although I've been bitten a couple of times with Debian 'unstable' and now stick to 'testing', I'm still hugely impressed with the overall feeling of solid quality with Debian. All my new servers this year are Debian (most of my older servers are still Mandrake, because they are working and there hasn't - yet - been any need to reinstall them).
Mandrake and the other commercial distributions, like AIX and Solaris and SCO, are essentially maintained by small groups of people working for pay to targets and deadlines set by masrketing. Debian, like Linux, is maintained by a large group of people working for the fun of it to deadlines they set themselves. I believe that the reason Debian is better than Mandrake is the same as the reason Linux is better than AIX and Solaris (yes, I have AIX and Solaris boxes too): fun is a better motivator than pay.
Re:heart == install? (Score:2)
I deny it.
Mandrake 7.2 (haven't tried 8) won't install on three of my nine Linux boxes - at all. 33% failure rate. Different reasons, but essentially if you have interesting or unusual hardware Mandrake install just doesn't want to know. Debian installs without problems on every one of my boxes. Mandrake's install sucks. Debian's install is way better.
Re:Debian is more than apt (Score:2)
Think the windows registry but for info purposes only so that the install can be more efficient.
The Windows Registry is only for "info purposes". There's no code there, although you could add it in theory. Code is also data, so everything we do with computers is really for "info purposes"
What is bad with the Windows Registry is its backup routines (it actually backups at each shutdown I think), lack of decent dependency, consistency and integrity rules and checking, lack of good overview by the user, cryptic keys, too many independent systems within it and too much unnecessary spam already inserted into. In effect the user may be be held hostage by a huge and incomprehensible database that might be corrupted in one way or another.
You've a good idea though, but it's already there in Debian I believe. Unfortunately having many distros means some incompatibility, no matter what.
- Steeltoe
Re:pkg_add (Score:2)
For OpenBSD's PHP port, just do:
$ env FLAVOR="imap gettext mysql gd" make install
and it'll do everything else automagically.
For a full list of possible flavors, do:
$ make show VARNAME=FLAVORS
Different flavor combinations result in a different binary package getting created.
Re:hmm, everyone's a winner (Score:2)
But then, packages are more than file and archive formats. It's mainly adherence to a set of rules (like Debian Policy - I'm sure each distro has its own set), therefore until there is no agreemenmt on the rules (and maybe never) a common package format and download protocol would be of little help.
So, I'll settle for cross-pollination.
Apt probs in mandrake (Score:2)
/etc/apt/sources.list
change the line
rpm ftp://ftp.sunet.se/pub/Linux/distributions/mandra
to
rpm ftp://ftp.sunet.se/pub/Linux/distributions/mandra
FreeBSD "Ports" (Score:2)
for projects that require many packages to be installed.
Ports is really flexible in where it downloads source code from which is then patched upon download and built locally and installed. It also gets all the dependencies it needs along the way.
http://www.freshports.org is a good site to watch how many port updates occur each day and all the new ones. Its pretty up to date but that as it does with Debian packages depends on the port/package maintainer.
Dave
Re:my beef w/ mandrake (Score:2)
Really? It's my favorite difference too - it's the one that's keeping me from using Mandrake. I can stand the arrogance of distributions that think they have a right to take over my window manager menus when I know damn well where my programs are too. (Not to mention that when you upgrade your wm or desktop by hand, you lose their menus!) In general, distribution menus suck, and distribution icons, color schemes, and wallpapers suck too. (Mandrake looks like it was designed by a four year old with a bunch of crayons).
Re:Another one... (Score:3)
Why couldn't they give it simple UI like Red Carpet instead of all these cryptic buttons and dialogs? It wouldn't have diminished its usefullness to do so.
Frankly it's perplexing. An hour in a usability lab would have exposed these flaws. It makes me wonder if Mandrake have any clue about usability at all. It is no wonder people say Linux isn't ready for the desktop when distros can even write a software update tool without slapping an overly complicated UI on top of it.
Re:The real question... (Score:2)
The answer is you set dependencies to what the package requires. It's not a "Mandrake hates you so they require 800 packages for php to work" type thing. One guy has even done HUGE research and experimentation to convert apache/php/ldap/imap to a completely modular setup. If you have ever compiled php into apache using source, you know that in order to upgrade one, you must upgrade BOTH (and it's worse if you have imap and ldap in the picture). Mandrake provides mod_* rpms so that these extra functions are completely modular and can be added/removed/upgraded at will. I am unaware if RH offers these same packages. All they have to do is use the spec files from the src rpms.
Do they keep library versions well syncronized with available apps?
If you're mixing and matching packages from older distros or other distros, then you will have problems. If it absolutely refuses to install the rpm, grab the
Is the auto update tool easy to use? That is, does it present dependencies clearly and show you release notes and advisories. I'd like to know *why* Apache has been updated, so I know if it really affects me.
The auto update tool...if you mean something that runs in a cron job like apt-get every night, I think you will be disappointed. But if you mean "select a package from a list of available packages and have it automatically fulfill dependencies either locally or from a defined ftp site", then the answer is yes. As far as *why* apache was updated, I do not think that security issues are normally recorded in the rpm descriptions, but I could be wrong.
Can I depend on the vendor to quickly release security critical updates. If I have to resort to source in an emergency, it defeats the whole point of packaging.
There are guys that monitor security aspects as the primary focus of their job. They verify/classify the security reports on places like BugTraq and then upgrade the packages and release them to the mirrors. But you always have the option that I described above. Grab the source, tweak the
Blue skies... Cannonball
Re:Another one... (Score:2)
So, if you're going to upgrade to Perl 5.6.1, make sure you copy the Locale::GetText library, as well as the rpmtools library and the urpmisomething library (can't remember, at work, using Win2K) from your Perl 5.6.0 $EPREFIX/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.0/.
I probably should mention that if urpmi won't work, then MandrakeUpdate won't work at all, but it also won't display any errors which is most annoying.
--
Re:What people forget... (Score:2)
You should take a look at the "uupdate" program, from the "devscripts" package. It automates this particular step for you (although of course if it's a dbs source or if upstream has changed their build system, you're out of luck)
Generally, on a stable system, I don't find myself having to do this..it's my experience that the versions in unstable are up-to-date enough unless I have a special need for a particular feature in a new version.
Daniel
Re:my beef w/ mandrake (Score:2)
Re:apt-get versus dselect (Score:2)
apt-cache search
Because when I find a package all the information is there about dependencies etc
apt-cache show
Because it allows me to preview the dependencies and change my mind if I don't like what they throw up
apt-get install (yup, it asks)