×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

URPMI For Fedora Core 2

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the cross-platform-grail dept.

Red Hat Software 246

Jaroslaw Zachwieja writes "Stefan van der Eijk, the autor of Slbd - automated tool to rebuild distributions to different architectures/processors in a sanitized environment, has published set of RPMS of URPMI for Fedora Core 2. The only usage difference is that it uses hdlist instead of compressed hdlist.cz known from Mandrake. Are we one step further towards Cross-distro RPMS?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

246 comments

My penis in your shaft (0, Troll)

(TK2)Dessimat0r (669581) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673909)

____ _ ___ _ _ ___ ____ __
_ ______ _ ___ _ _.__ .::::. _ .
_ ___ __ ___ ____ O\\/W\/\/W\//O
_ ___ __ ___ _____ \\/A\/\/A\//
_ ___ __ ___ _____ _\_o_OO_o_/_
_ ___ __ ___ ____ / ' ' ' ' ' '\
_ ___ __ ___ ___ l '=.= '' =.=' l Trollkore - the premier
_ ___ __ ___ ___ l . .-....-. . l Slashdot trolls
_ ___ __ ___ ___ l )(o_/ll\_o)( l
_ ___ __ ___ ___ l/. . .oo. . .\l Trolling heaven
_ ____ (o._ .'.' (__. ./||\. .__) since 1911
_ _ _____) \_______\_\UUUUUUU/_/_________________,
_(_)o8o8{}(___\\_________o\___________\ \_________>
_ ___ __ )_/ .'.'.' l-UUUUUUU-l ACCEPT NO IMITATIONZ...
_ ____ (o .'.'. __ _l o. o. . l_____, WE ARE THE BEST!!
_ ___ ____ ,.---m-.`._________.`.- a '-.
_ ___ __ / . . .".'ol. . o . l. .x. . . \, FUCKING LINUX USERS
_ ___ __ l .". . . . l.. . ..l . .".z. . l FUCKING SCUM, I
_ ___ __ l. .s. .b. . l o . o . .'. . . .l SAY, UNABLE TO
_ ___ __ l.. . . .'.x.l. . .l. . . r". ..l MOVE FROM YOUR PC
_ ___ ___ l .c. .". . l. . .l .". . . . l \, DUE TO YOUR STOMACH
_ ___ ___ l. .o. . .". l o l .x.'. . .'.l. .\, SIZE, WHEN YOU
_ ___ ____ l. .c.a. . .l.".l. . .".b. .l. . . \, MOVE BILE SPEWS
_ ___ ____ l..".k. . . l . l . . . . ..l .f. . .l FROM YOUR MOUTH
_ ___ _____ l . .s. . .l. .l. . .z. . l . .u. . l
_ ___ _____ l. . . .a. l=-=l . .". .r.l. . .c. .l NOT FIT TO EVEN
_ ___ _____ l . . . . .l'o'l. . . . . lc. . .k. l LIVE ON THIS PLANET,
_ ___ _____ /"-.,__,.-"\'o'/"-.,__,.-"\"-.,_,.-"\ ALL YOU BRING IS
_ ___ ____ l' ' ' ' " ' \U/' ' ' ' ' ' l' ' ' ' 'l FLIES AND FAMINE
_ ___ ____ l __ __ __ __ l' ' ' ' " ' 'l ' ' ' ' l
_ ___ _____ \_P|_I|_M|_P/ \__|__|__|__/ \_|__|__/ STUPIDER THAN APES!

Like a pack of wolves, you surround the carcass
of Linux, hoping to digest any living flesh from
it in a desperate attempt to appetise your
swollen parasite infested stomachs. You make me sick...

# Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) # Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

So now Fedora can run on my ass? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9673914)

Because that's all it's good for. /gentoo-zealot

Hah, can't fool us! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674166)

I can tell you're not a real Gentoy zealot because you don't spend three paragraphs telling us all why emerge is far supperior to apt/yum/urpmi because you only get binary packages and they arn't as "optimised" as your uber-leet Gentoy files, because you set the CFLAGS yourself and it's seventy three lines long, even on your 200 column semi-transparent 3D rotating Xterm with an mildly sexual anime background image below it, and even though over 70% of the flags you're passing to Gcc are mutually exclusive or only applicable to MIPS hardware, you just know it rocks to compile Xfce from source every other week. Because you're just that cool. You faker!

apt (2, Insightful)

selfabuse (681350) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673916)

a cross platform package system would be great, but wouldn't something like apt with dependency resolution be much better then RPM? (yes I know there is apt for redhat/fedora)

URPMI does depndancy resolution (5, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673926)

URPMI can do pretty much everything apt can do. It is really no better or worse. Apt has more conveient commands for some things, URPMI does for others.

Same shit, different stick really.

Re:apt (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9673933)

RPM has dependency resolution too -- the only thing apt has going for it beyond RPM is that Debian, the most prominant user base for apt, keeps their dependencies in great shape.

If RedHat or SuSE were to have the same army of developers managing packages and ensuring their dependencies are all assigned correctly, they'd be just as effective as Debian.

Re:apt (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9673971)

Actually I find the debian "Army of developers" is actually pretty shit since most of the developers are college or high school kids doing packaging in their spare time so it takes ages for new packages to be updated.

Even the much overglorified "unstable" of debian is really pretty old n' crusty, at least compared to distros that can actually pay people to work on them.

Re:apt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674077)

I don't think anyone else is close the amount of packages that Debian has.

How many plattforms?

How many packages?

What quality?

Yes.. Debian is a bit on the slow side. But their doing a great jobb.

Re:apt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674095)

Ya, they have a lot of packages the majority of which are stupid shit like Joey Jo's Mp3 Lowercaser Script written in Perl. Yay, i need 2,000 different ones of those!

Re:apt (1)

FubarPA (670436) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674426)

No, RPM itself does not have dependency resolution. If you try to install an RPM you downloaded, but you forgot about a dependency, it's not going to go download that dependency for you. Using apt, yum or urpmi is what does the resolution for you.

Re:apt (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9673934)

Sorry, debian zealot, but rpm is actually superior to .deb. Tools like urpmi and yum do exactly the same thing apt does except they use the superior rpm format for the packages.

Re:apt (2, Insightful)

senzafine (630873) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673943)

I agree. But hopefully that's the next step...to have something to resolve dependencies cross platform. I know that when I first started using linux that dependency hell was my main reason to revert back to windows. Once you get used to it...it's ok. But for newbies...that would be really sweet to have a uniform package system w/ dependency resolution.

Re:apt (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673981)

URPMI does dependency resolution. And apt has been ported to work with .rpms besides .debs.

Still, I sigh each time a new RPM-based distro or tool is announced. Why couldn't they just adopt Debian's packaging tools? They were there first, and worked well from the beginning. RPM has been a nightmare.

dpkg !> rpm (2)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674019)

Still, I sigh each time a new RPM-based distro or tool is announced. Why couldn't they just adopt Debian's packaging tools?

There is nothing to be gained from using dpkg over rpm, really. I'm a debian user, and in fact would prefer if Debian switched over to rpm (which is specified in LSB as the standard packaging mechanism, BTW). Dependency resolution and all that works with rpm as well.

Obviously this will happen, because Debian is, well, Debian.

Re:dpkg ! rpm (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674279)

.deb and .rpm do indeed fullfil the same function, and are more or less equally good. This is exactly why I detest RPM. Why did they have to cook up a new and incompatible format, rather than use .deb?

Debian packages don't suffer from the incompatibilities that RPMs do (RPM was changed incompatibly a number of times), and RPM has long lacked the convenience of apt. All this could have been avoided if distros had adopted .deb.

Re:apt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674132)

I'm no linux expert, and i only have experience with rpm in suse9. Could you please explain what makes it such a nightmare? I think yast2 does a pretty nice job installing them. What makes deb packages better?

Iwan

Re:apt (2, Informative)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674215)

Basically, .deb isn't that much better than .rpm. It is apt (the software that downloads packages and dependencies) that has made Debian's package management superior to what RPM-based distro's provide. That, and the size of Debian's package repositories (I think Debian provides more packages than any other distro) makes dependency resolving really work.

One final argument is that .deb was there before .rpm. Red Hat decided to roll their own, incompatible format, which was not only Evil and Rude, but has also caused many people to have an subobtimal experience managing packages.

Re:apt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674013)

Ah dependancy resolution, that holy grail.

The reason I abandoned binary packaging years ago and haven't looked back. Luckily computers are now fast enough to not have to worry too badly about the extra compiling time. Unfortunately this is not much good for desktop apps where the user often wants to get up and running immidiately (or uninstall the app once tried).

Perhaps the way forward is for URPMI to be able to fall back onto source-based installs when their dependancies have problems. Then if a binary needs library X and you have library Y installed, it'll compile from source to use what you have rather than breaking 3/4 of your system fixing it.

Use tar.gz (-1, Troll)

vivekg (795441) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674021)

Nothing is better than compiling and optimizing tar.gz (tarballs). Works great and you will get full control over application or better use FreeBSD portage system... say no to RPMS!

Re:apt (5, Informative)

rsd (194962) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674482)

There is no apt vs rpm as there is no urpmi vs dkpg. it is like comparing a beer (liquid) with a beer can.

APT is a great management tool. But it is not a packaging format/tool.

APT already works with Debian, debian dkpg based distros and some RPM based distros as:
- Conectiva (they ported to rpm and support apt use)
- Mandrake (at least for the cooker)
- Redhat and Suse (thru 3rd party prepared mirrors)

An advantage of URPMI over APT is that URPMI can do small updates instead of taking the
whole package list and putting it in a big "rpm -Uvh" command line.

Who needs em? (1, Funny)

daringone (710585) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673920)

Seriously, is:

./configure
make
make install

Really that hard that we need cross distro RPMS?

Re:Who needs em? (5, Insightful)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673948)


Seriously, is: ./configure
make
make install

Really that hard that we need cross distro RPMS?


configure; make; make install does nothing with dependencies. If you, for example, don't have qt development headers on your machine, it just croaks.

Re:Who needs em? (1)

daringone (710585) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674016)

configure; make; make install does nothing with dependencies. If you, for example, don't have qt development headers on your machine, it just croaks.
I understand what you're saying. However, I think most people, when possible, will tell someone to compile from source before using an RPM. I know this for fact with both Apache and Qmail. Granted, these aren't your run-of-the-mill desktop applications, but just an example. With that in mind, most applications will have a list of what dependencies are needed to compile the application. Maybe I haven't used RPMs enough to know why/how they are able to fulfill dependencies (I was gently pushed towards always compiling source early in my *ix newbiehood) but I would think you'd still have to install appropriate RPMs to satisfy RPM dependencies too wouldn't you?

Re:Who needs em? (1)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674045)

. Maybe I haven't used RPMs enough to know why/how they are able to fulfill dependencies (I was gently pushed towards always compiling source early in my *ix newbiehood) but I would think you'd still have to install appropriate RPMs to satisfy RPM dependencies too wouldn't you?

Yes, but the hadnling is automatic these days with software like you and apt-rpm.

I guess you'll have to experience "yum install kde" and see it fetch a zillion packaged to appreciate the work it does for you.

Re:Who needs em? (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674119)

I guess you'll have to experience "yum install kde" and see it fetch a zillion packaged to appreciate the work it does for you.


Oh. As if that's not easy with urpmi??

urpmi.update -a (updates all media sources)
urpmi kde (grabs latest kde with dependencies)

samey same

Re:Who needs em? (2, Insightful)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674218)

Oh. As if that's not easy with urpmi??

Comparison was with configure/make/make install, not urpmi.

Re:Who needs em? (1)

DarkSarin (651985) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674127)

Hence the whole idea behind compile everything distros like gentoo, which not only handles dependencies, but also handles compiling.

Now if gentoo only had a simpler way to install everything... (but they do have a nice upgrade path!)

Re:Who needs em? (3, Interesting)

bustersnyvel (562862) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674121)

configure; make; make install does nothing with dependencies. If you, for example, don't have qt development headers on your machine, it just croaks.

True. I'm amazed that Portage isn't ported to RPM-based distros yet. It handles compiling source gracefully, including dependencies. It can also install binary packages. To me, it's the perfect tool for the job.

Re:Who needs em? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674234)

If you, for example, don't have qt development headers on your machine, it just croaks.

I don't have qt headers or qt/KDE or X and yet I can build applications fine ;-) People who aren't prepared to learn shouldn't be building GUI programs from source, if you are prepared to learn then this is a non issue! This is only a mistake made once by newbies and they learn what header files and linking is in the process, I think that's a GOOD THING!

Dependancy Hell, we worship at your alter!

Re:Who needs em? (1)

kyknos.org (643709) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673950)

the problem is it is not as easy as you describe in many cases. I am not a beginner, but when i tried this at gimp pre2.0 something, i got dozens of errors. precompilled rpm worked fine. so for normal users and for linux on average desktop precompilled software is not only usefull but probably necessary

Re:Who needs em? (4, Insightful)

Gorath99 (746654) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673956)

Seriously, is:

./configure
make
make install

Really that hard that we need cross distro RPMS?

It is if we ever want desktop linux to take off.

And besides, if it makes my life even a little easier, I'll be pleased.

Re:Who needs em? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674051)

If you're building from source, you shouldn't expect an easy life!

Re:Who needs em? (1)

daringone (710585) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674061)

It is if we ever want desktop linux to take off.
This is true... but by that time we should also have the little "Next > Next > Next > Finish" graphical install programs that make Windows/Mac so popular and easy for Joe Doorknob end-user too.

Re:Who needs em? (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673961)

You'd give up automated dependancy checking and downloading in order to run someone's build script?

Besides, the five-step build process isn't universal. Try compiling Nethack+(any GUI for it)...I find configuring my kernel easier.

On the other hand, I've had to install apps that just came with C files, and no list of dependencies.

Re:Who needs em? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9673968)

Yeah, I never run into problems compiling software. All the requirements are "just there", and if they're missing, it gives me a friendly error message telling me exactly what's wrong/missing.

NOT.

Don't agree with me? I guess you don't need RPMs/URPMI/APT/YUM.

Re:Who needs em? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674038)

Yeah, I never run into problems compiling software. All the requirements are "just there", and if they're missing, it gives me a friendly error message telling me exactly what's wrong/missing.

Why should it give you an error? It should just fetch what it needs itself.

0install.net [0install.net]

Re:Who needs em? (4, Interesting)

mahdi13 (660205) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673977)

RPMs can be considered the "Install Shield" of Linux. Yes compiling from source is easy and can be better...but when was the last time you compiled something like KDE or Gnome or even OpenOffice.org from source?

Last time I compiled just the kde-base it took over 12 hours. When a RPM would do the trick in less then 5 minutes. Sure, you may lose some of your precious 'performance tweaks' but you didn't have to wait a day to use it!

BTW, I use Gentoo and love it so I'm not some corporate brainwashed RPM troll. But I can see the benifits of RPMs in a more 'commercial' environment.

Re:Who needs em? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674107)

Compiling KDE right now ;)

Re:Who needs em? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674199)

RPM is great for distro packages but it utterly sucks for 3rd party apps.

"install shield" for linux exists. here [lokigames.com] is where it has lived for years.

it works great, is nice and graphical and can deal with KDE,Gnome other desktops as well as a text console.

yet there it sits unused by programmers.

Re:Who needs em? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9673992)

Wow, you're such a man!

Gee, have fun resolving the dependencies and having a shitload of headers and assorted source code sitting around so the crap comiles properly.

Re:Who needs em? (1)

RupW (515653) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673997)

Another thing is that there's rarely, if ever, a "make uninstall" but that's easy with packages. Sometimes it's easy to manually hunt down all bits and rm them, sometimes it isn't.

Re:Who needs em? (5, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674133)

``Seriously, is: ./configure
make
make install

Really that hard that we need cross distro RPMS?''

I hope you don't really think so.

First off, autoconf configure scripts take a long time to run, and if the package is of any complexity, the compilation will also take a long time.

Secondly, all sorts of things go wrong during ./configure. Dependencies can be missing, which you would have to find, fetch, configure, build, and install - manually. Also, configure scripts are usually buggy (omitting necessary checks, and performing many unnecessary ones).

Third, make install is typically run as root. Do you trust the script not to install any trojans? How about ./configure wiping out the files in your home directory? I put more trust in my distributor than in random people who wrote the software. Not even so much that they would put in trojans, but how is the security of their server?

Fourth, software built and installed from source can be a bitch to uninstall. If it installed in its own directory, possibly creating symlinks in /usr/bin et al, this would be easy. As it is, however, they put files all over the place. Good luck figuring out which files belong to the package you want to remove.

Fifth, packages often need some tailoring to fit in well with your distribution (think menu entries, file locations, etc.) With prepackaged software, this has been done for you.

All in all, a good package manager beats compiling from source any day. Debian's package management tools are very very good, and the reason I prefer Debian over any other distro. They resolve dependencies automagically (which RPM-based distro's are finally beginning to get working), and if you want, you can build the package from source with all the tweaks you want.

Re:Who needs em? (3, Insightful)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674154)

Erm, of course it is. Compiling your own software:

- doesn't resolve dependencies
- requires dev headers installed
- takes forever
- results in cryptic error messages on failure
- has no uninstall
- is confusing for many experienced users, let alone newbies
- often requires cryptic options (--enable-foo etc)

I've used linux for years and I still consider installing from source a last resort. It may have more geek-cred, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

Re:Who needs em? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674432)

I read the flipside of that, you are a lowly end user! I don't see any of these things as problems just a list of why _you_ shouldn't be compiling from source, it works great for me!

Re:Who needs em? (1)

g0qi (577105) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674160)

Seriously, is:


./configure
make
make install

Really that hard that we need cross distro RPMS?

I don't know how you can go to war about linux on the desktop, and still assume grandma and little johnny are going to have compilers installed on their system. And talk about the bloat.

Of Course we need cross distro RPMS.

Re:Who needs em? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674308)

I don't know how you can go to war about linux on the desktop,

Oddly a fair few of the pro-Linux types round here don't think it's ready for a general desktop yet. I've got in a flamewar or two assuming they did think that.

Re:Who needs em? (1)

ebuck (585470) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674603)

Cross distro RPMS would allow you to do the same, except you gain:

1. The ability to build on one machine yet install on another.
2. The ability to build on one architecture yet install on another.
3. The ability to perform you compiles in one highly observed area instead of tracking down multiple remote compilations and debugging them from afar.
4. The ability to not worry about current compiler installation and build tools on all platforms, just the one you're developing / building on.
5. The savings in time by building once per distributiable instead of once per installation.
6. A guranteed uninstall path, even if the installation distributable is removed or damaged.
7. A database of installed files allowing mapping of a file to a package, listing of all files in that package, and what packages require and depend on this one.
8. Easier / automated patch application for those times developers have overlooked your particular platform.
9. The gurantee that two platforms with the same RPM have the same bugs / issues / configuration / etc.
10. The ability to see which (if any) files have been modified since the original installation.

So if your supporting that one computer at home which also doubles as your development box, and you're willing to waste away portions of your lifetime doing exactly what others have already done by fixing those compiler warnings / errors / learning someone else's source code better than them. Then, I guess, they are about equivalent solutions.

urpmi vs yum (4, Insightful)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673927)

So, what's the difference betweem urpmi and yum? I thought urpmi is equivalent to apt/yum (at least it was advertised as such in the context of Mandrake), but apparently that is not the case...

Re:urpmi vs yum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9673998)

Comparing yum to urpmi is a bit like comparing dpkg to yum.

Since I'm in a generous mood you get $2 worth of flamebait for just 2 cents, but only if you order now.

Re:urpmi vs yum (4, Informative)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674079)

I've only read about yum, but I've used urpmi with Mandrake for years. I can tell you about how urpmi works:

1. urpmi.addmedia -- allows a user to define new media (cdrom, ftp, nfs, etc) to be used for getting updated rpms and dependencies. Graphical tool is gurpmi.addmedia.

2. urpmi.update -- polls the media sources that are not on fixed media and downloads fresh hdlist files if available.

3. urpmi.removemedia -- samey same as addmedia, only in reverse. No graphical tool as this function is available in guprmi.addmedia utility.

4. urpmi / gurpmi -- command line / graphical utilities to download/install new/updated rpms, solving dependencies along the way.

5. edit-urpm-sources.pl -- a GUI tool available for Mandrake to edit the list of available source media.

I keep hearing about yum, apt, red-carpet, etc, and read a lot of confusion about how they compare to Mandrake's tool. I've messed with Debian's apt/get system on my testbed machine, but I keep coming back to Mandrake and urpmi. It's familiar, easy to use and I likes it.

Re:urpmi vs yum (4, Interesting)

buchanmilne (258619) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674082)

For one,yum is *much*, *much* slower than urpmi at dependency resolution, second, I don't think yum supports retreiving packages via ssh/rsync, and I am sure there are others.

Re:urpmi vs yum (1)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674165)

For one,yum is *much*, *much* slower than urpmi at dependency resolution, second, I don't think yum supports retreiving packages via ssh/rsync, and I am sure there are others.

Honestly, both points seem rather trivial to me. My experience with yum suggests maximum dependency resolution time of 15 seconds, which is not that big a deal considering that you don't do that too often - and the packages need to be fetched anyway.

No need (4, Informative)

alexbartok (764756) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673939)

At least for us Debian-fanatics...

alien works perfectly well for importing rpms and solaris packages... never failed on me.

(Although in some cases a little directory tweaking might be necessary, but that`s really not that much of an issue, at least IMHO)

Re:No need (4, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674229)

It is no longer 1999* and the era of Debian users making off-topic comments in every RPM story is past. It is now the era of Gentoo users making off-topic comments in every Debian story. Please get with the program.

* Your 2.0.x Debian kernel notwithstanding...

Re:No need (1)

alexbartok (764756) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674289)

lol !
I was trying to point something out which might have been unknown to newer Debian users reading this.

Besides, I'm running 2.6.6 ;)

Re:No need (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674366)

Yes, Alien has always worked perfectly for me as well! Of course, I'm assuming that it's aim is to produce hundreds of lines of error messages and (if you're really lucky) a non-functional package of some variety.

Anyway, I thought that Debian came with all the packages you would ever need so what would you use this tool for? Are they not the very latest versions or something?

Great! (1)

kunudo (773239) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673959)

The one thing I miss since switching from mandrake to fc2 is urpmi. If it works as well as it does in mandrake, this is very very nice indeed.
Sure, it's not really a problem using DAG or some other repository, apt, yum etc, but urpmi is at another level (at least for mandrake).

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674049)

How is URPMI on Mandrake different from APT on Fedora?

Re:Great! (4, Funny)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674120)

The one thing I miss since switching from mandrake to fc2 is urpmi.

So you don't miss your boot sector?

*drumroll*

Sure, it's not really a problem using DAG or some other repository, apt, yum etc, but urpmi is at another level (at least for mandrake).

Isn't that mostly an issue with available repositories, as opposed to software that does the fetching and installing?

Yes please. (4, Interesting)

haeger (85819) | more than 9 years ago | (#9673979)

This is one of my pet peeves when it comes to Linux. Why do I have to have one RH9, one MDK, one SuSE and one Fedora just to be able to redistribute my package to the largest rpm-based distributions.

I was introduced to chroots not to long ago and this made my life a little more simple. Just create a small partition of your disk, install a distribution there, don't update the boot partition and move the new dist to a directory on your system. Then just cd into that dir and chroot. Whammo, instant mandrake/suse/redhat/fedora. =)
Atleast for devel purposes.

I don't know much about windows but I imagine that this is one thing that they've managed to nail down. Something created on XP have a fair chance of running on other windows. Or am I misinformed?

.haeger

Re:Yes please. (2, Informative)

FauxPasIII (75900) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674155)

> Whammo, instant mandrake/suse/redhat/fedora. =)

Usermode Linux will get you an even more complete experience. This is what we use at emperor linux [emperorlinux.com]
to keep our distribution images up to date, all running on one big quad-xeon server.

The main strength of this is that your fake fedora/suse/whatever machine has its own process list and /proc tree to muck around with, and won't reach out and mess with your "host" system.

Re:Yes please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674228)

It's because the distro maintainers throw apps WILLY NILLY in the file structure as wel as dink with the file structure at whim just to screw with people or to stroke egos.

want to make linux more unified? build a standard file structure layout and then beat to hell all distros maintainers that do not strictly adhere to it.

windows doesn't put things in program files one version then /opt/program files thenext and then /usr/local/programfiles the other.

only linux maintainers do such stupid things.

Re:Yes please. (2, Interesting)

ebuck (585470) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674418)

Unfortunately, that's exactly what every one of these "incompatiable" distros have and are doing.

Of course, you could enforce standards so tightly that there's only one implementation (yours). The real art is to create a standard flexible enough that I can do what I want (need) to without "breaking" your standard.

Mabye you don't want stuff in /opt, but I don't want to test a beta compiler by removing my stable version of the same in /usr/bin. If I couldn't override the installation directory, I couldn't have them both installed at the same time.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but similar problems exist in Windows, you just have to install more software. Nearly all vendors are consistent with themselves, but they do not agree with "the other guys" practices.

Fedora has best packages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674028)

Ok, so the flamewars are over. Fedora/RH now has the posibility of running Yum, Apt-Get, URMPI.

What other meta-packaging formats don't run on fedora? (not considering the slackware one, since it dosn't have dependencies and rpms have dependencies)

Just to note, this dosn't mean that mandrake rpms will work on fedora, just like, that although there is apt-get for fedora, it installs rpms and not debs.
This is just a meta-format for installing fedora/RH packages with dependency resolution, etc...

Now can someone enlighten me why I would want to use URMPI instead of the exsisting Apt-Get and YUM?

The lost Newbie blinks... (4, Interesting)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674035)

*blinks*

I think I speak for all long term windows users here when I say.... Huh? .....
I've only got the faintest idea what this article is going on about, but since I'm a Fedora user with a gripe about installing software on linux, I'll brashly comment anyway.

RPM is good. I love RPM. I can't imagine where I'd be without that lovely self contained, self extracting package that Just Works(TM). Of course sometimes it dosen't Just Work, like when it was built for a different distro, which is very annoying.
Still, it's either that or configure,make,make install or a big gcc -lSDL - lSDL_image -lGLU etc..... for about 50 files. And while these things aren't rocket science, not having a double click to install makes my Linux life all the harder. I'm too long in the windows universe perhaps, but I still like RPM. Now if only it had a GUI.

But on the other hand, will self installers lead us down the path of mindless users, spyware and spam boxes with
embedded linux(the horror)!!! Do we tread the path of usability at our peril?

P.S.
What's hdlist.

Re:The lost Newbie blinks... (1)

Too Much Noise (755847) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674212)

hdlist is the package index that urpmi uses for the given repository. The 'full' version (actually the gzipped hdlist.cz) contains as extra the package info for each package: full file list, notes, changelog (needed if you want to use for instance urpmf - find packages that contain a given filename string). The 'short' version (synthesis.hdlist.gz) contains only the package list and dependencies (provides/requires) for the repository (useful for slow connections, as the full index for mdk easily goes to some tens of megs for main and contrib).

Debian (0, Flamebait)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674394)

I'll keep repeating this until posts about RPM being good/not doing dependencies/both no longer get modded up.

If you want package management to Just Work(TM), use Debian. It comes with apt-get, which automatically downloads and installs your package _and_ its dependencies, and because Debian (AFAIK) has the largest collection of packages, the chance of it really finding your package and dependencies is higher than for any other distro, even one that uses the same tools.

Now to dispell some common misconceptions:

1. Debian is _not_ far behind the bleeding edge. The stable distribution is, and that's because their policy is to keep the packages at the same versions (and only backport security fixes) so that your configurations files etc. will still work _exactly_ as they used to. If you want the latest and greatest, use Debian unstable, which is still of excellent quality (despite the name), but has the occasional breakages that any distro on the bleeding edge has.

2. Debian is not hard to install. The installer is text-based, and, indeed, gives you lots of text, explaining what needs to be done. The old installer did not automagically detect hardware, which means you would have to use trial and error to figure out which driver to use with your network card. The new installer will be better, but still has bugs that need to be squashed. Whichever installer you use, it is not hard. At least, I don't see what's hard about it, and I have asked people to tell me what it is, to no avail.

So, do yourself a favor, and give Debian a spin. Chances are you'll like it.

Re:Debian (1)

skiman1979 (725635) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674639)

If you want package management to Just Work(TM), use Debian. It comes with apt-get, which automatically downloads and installs your package _and_ its dependencies

Well urpmi on Mandrake will download the package _and_ its dependancies as well. I can set up my system to point to one or more mirrors, as well as the installation CD's. Then when I 'urpmi ' it will search through the FTP mirrors I have configured to find the package and each dependancy (if any). Urmpi will return the list to me asking if it is ok to install these, and the original package. I think it handles this pretty well. I've never used Debian, so I can't say anything about apt, but apt isn't the only thing that does dependancy checking/downloading/installing.

Re:The lost Newbie blinks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674489)

This is easy to explain.

windows - most libraries are there and unchanged. if an app uses a library that is not normal, it is usually included with the installer package.

linux - apps usually use one of 20 different version of libraries, most of the time the app you want uses a more recent version that your distro does NOT have . also many apps like to use libraries that are not common and included in your distro. now the linux app tells you RTFM! and makes you go searching for this library on your own, make you install it on your own and the nyou have to start your install process over from the beginning again.

Until linux apps start shipping as staticaly built to avoid the dependancy hell that is linux right now (OMG!!! BURN THE HERETIC!), System libraries stablize, or the app developers stop being asshats and give you the libraries with the program when you download it... it will be a nasty mess.

RPM Lacks Security Checks (4, Interesting)

Tocano33 (469225) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674065)

This worries me a bit. I personally cannot endorse the use of the RPM system globally until it more stringently ensures package validity.

The RPM system has virtually no assurance of GPG key identification. Basically, if a mirror (or any website that serves RPMs) pushes out malicious RPMs, the GPG check by the RPM installer gives NO warning if the RPM isn't encoded at all, and only a passing warning if it doesn't match the RH public key.

This is a potentially huge hole in all RPM based distros, as was demonstrated to me recently by a manipulated RH RPM which, when installed, deleted the iptables rules file and various other things. Yet, the RPM system barely complained about the GPG mismatch and installed anyway (without telling what it did either).

If we're moving toward cross-distro RPM system, it is multiplying the potential problem. I think this needs to be addressed before such a system is adopted by other distros.

Re:RPM Lacks Security Checks (4, Informative)

buchanmilne (258619) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674116)

Maybe you should read up on urpmi then.

If warns you (and requires a confirmation to continue) if a package is not signed. It warns you (and requires a confirmation to continue) if a package is signed, but you have not told urpmi to trust packages signed by the key used for the packages in the repository you are using.

That's another advantage urpmi has over all other packaging frontends I am aware of.

Re:RPM Lacks Security Checks (2, Informative)

Linegod (9952) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674149)

Did you even bother to RTFP? I can see you failing to RTFA, but the post? The article (and the post) were about 'urpmi', not RPM. urpmi does GPG checking, and will ask if you want to continue when it notices a mismatch, unless passed --no-verify-rpm.

Re:RPM Lacks Security Checks (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674162)

This worries me a bit. I personally cannot endorse the use of the RPM system globally until it more stringently ensures package validity.

The RPM system has virtually no assurance of GPG key identification. Basically, if a mirror (or any website that serves RPMs) pushes out malicious RPMs, the GPG check by the RPM installer gives NO warning if the RPM isn't encoded at all, and only a passing warning if it doesn't match the RH public key.


I call bullshit. urpmi has been doing just this kind of checking for some time now, at least since the version used in Mandrake 9.0 or so. I frequently grab Mandrake RPMS from glarb.org's Penguin Liberation Front and see many a warning about lack of GPG signatures.

This is great and all (1)

Sarojin (446404) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674086)

...but what I'd prefer would be more of a port or integration of portage, because I'm still not so sure that I want to be running other peoples binaries.

The difference is GUI (2, Interesting)

levell (538346) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674115)

The main difference between yum and uprmi seems to be that there is a stable GUI for urpmi. There is the beginnings of a GUI for yum here [cobind.com] but I can't seem to get it to work right for me on FC2 using a proxy. (Apt has the synaptic GUI).

Re:The difference is GUI (4, Informative)

Scyber (539694) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674262)

Can't you just use up2date for a yum gui? I did this on Fedora Core 1 & 2.

Re:The difference is GUI (1, Insightful)

levell (538346) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674333)

You can't install new packages with up2date, it just updates the current ones.

Yay, more out of sync updaters (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674124)

so now on fedora you have:
  • Yum
  • up2date
  • apt (synaptic)
  • urpmi
All of which get out of sync with each other and your system. Sigh.

Re:Yay, more out of sync updaters (4, Informative)

levell (538346) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674422)

None of these updaters keep a list of what is already installed on the system, they all use the rpm database, as long as the repositories you use for them all are compatible (they don't obselete each others packages etc.) then you should be fine.

Re:Yay, more out of sync updaters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674651)

untrue. all managers use rpm as underlying layer.

Different Issues (3, Interesting)

InodoroPereyra (514794) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674188)

Having URPMI under Fedora will give Fedora users another Front End to RPM. Is this good for them ? Most likely yes.

The other issue, the one about being able to write source RPMS (.src.rpm files) that work in several distros, has to do with the different distros standarizing on the RPM macros, file naming conventions, version schemes and so on. It is all in the Back End. It would be great of course, and it would save a lot of duplicated efforts for the different distributions.

What would be even more interesting as a further step, would be to be able to massively build source RPMS from the RPM front end (be it URPMI or whatever), a la gentoo. This is, to provide a systematic way to get the RPM front end to download and build all the SRC RPMS you need to install the package you need (assuming you can't install these dependendencies from binaries). This would help users compile packages from other distros or from third parties in a painless way.

Re:Different Issues (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674495)

Why not simply compile the RPM once and have everybody use it? Linux binary portability is good enough for that, you know.

Ugh, I hope not (1)

feilkin (790260) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674201)

I'm really hoping that RPM does not become the new packaged standard. Debian packages tied in with apt are just so much more powerful and have a much better chance for future expansion. I seriously think that more distros should support apt-get, it's a much better tool.

Also, as mentioned before, alien works fairly decent on debian machines for using RPM packages, it would just be a lot easier for everyone if some sort of common ground was found between the different methods of packaging.

Re:Ugh, I hope not (4, Informative)

vidarh (309115) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674278)

RPM IS the standard, both defacto by being used by distro's making up the vast majority of Linux distributions, and enshrined as required by Linux Standard Base.

And apt-get is supported by more and more RPM based distro's, including Fedora. Dragging out apt at this point as an argument for Debian packages is a strawman - Apt haven't been tied exclusively to Debian for a long time.

Each time this discussion comes up I wait for arguments as to why Debian packages are supposedly superior, and why it matters, but so far I have yet to see any arguments presented with actual reasoning behind. I'd love to know what's so great about them... Somebody care to try to enlighten me?

Little-used advantage of RPMs? (2, Interesting)

makomk (752139) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674237)

One of the things that I find is really great about RPMs is that you can find out what package a file is from using rpm -q -f /path/to/somefile (generic RPM feature, not URPMI-dependant). This is great for tracking down the source and purpose of those mysterious files that you find lying around on most systems. I don't know of a good way of doing this on Windows, which is one of my pet Windows annoyances.

Great news, but y'all will need this... (2, Informative)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674270)

I'm excited to hear that urpmi is available for Fedora. It will give me renewed reason to install it on one of my machines here and play more with Fedora. I've always had a pet peeve for systems that lacked the kind of package installation software such as apt/get, urpmi, etc. Fedora has finally solved that.

However, to make urpmi truly useful, there needs to be a repository of good source trees for ftp download for the particular distribution. Thus the folks at zarb.org [zarb.org] created easyurpmi.org [easyurpmi.org] to help folks out in configuring source media on Mandrake. Loaded with lots of different mirrors carrying Mandrake RPMS from the various different sources (main, contrib, updates, plf, etc), this tool generates a commandline that will add a urpmi source media entry to the urpmi database.

Now, someone needs to get on the stick and start compiling the sources for Fedora urpmi sources. Hop to it, kids.

Building from source? (1)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674317)

Which of the Fedora package managers does the best job of building from SRPMs, if any? I like the idea of being able to build my own binaries using my own compile flags for certain packages... What are the issues with using different package managers after the initial install? Will urpmi

Alternatively, is there a distribution point for AMD (32 and 64 bit) optimized RPMs?

TIA...

linux is linux (1)

deathguppie (768263) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674328)

I use both Qcad, and [ribbonsoft.com] Varicad [varicad.com] for my personal drafting. But when my personal distro choice (Gentoo), wasn't supported by Varcad. I just emerged RPM, and installed the Fedora2 RPM. Everything has worked fine. So I tried a couple more. And Guess what?

It seems as long as the dependancies are correct, they just seem to work. Go figure

URPMI keeps me... (1)

bob670 (645306) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674389)

stuck on Mandrake, mostly out of pure laziness. But since I don't care for the way Mandrake hides/alters some default file locations this puts Fedora back on the table for me. Hmmm, choice is good....

YaST (1)

digime (681824) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674412)

Anecdotal for sure but: I've been using Mandrake and urpmi for about a year and a half now. I create my own RPMs for programs I install that don't have one, so that I can uninstall it easily if need be and to contribute something back to the community however small. I list all dependencies in the RPM exactly like I should, however urpmi never would automatically resolve those dependencies on another Mandrake box (the box the RPMs were built with of course had the dependents).

I decided to install SUSE last week for s#17s and giggles, and to see why it was so well thought of. YAST amazingly resolved those dependencies in my RPMs without a hiccup. Out of the 100s of packages I've installed I have not been in dependency hell once. I also like the fact that you can right-click on any RPM and click "Install with YAST" in the context menu. Very, very easy and nice. Not one problem so far installing software.

Zero Install (2, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674479)

What I would like to see more in distros is Zero Install [sourceforge.net] .

No more keeping lists of available packages on your local system, or worse, manually tracking dependencies. No more packages not being available for your distro. No more compiling from source. Instead, click and you've got it. I couldn't think of a more user friendly way to install software.

The other great advantage is that it integrates well with both the Web and the local system. With Zero Install you can click and run programs like Java applets, but they will _really_ integrate with your desktop, and _really_ run at native speed. Now hopefully we can kick some bloat out of applications so that they don't take a day to download.

Re:Zero Install (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 9 years ago | (#9674525)

The problem with zero install is that it's not backwards compatible enough. There's no easy way for a zero install app to use the Python on your system but fall back to a zero-install build on the net if that's not present. It can be done but it's really non-trivial. Oh, not to mention that it doesn't fit in with the FDO standards being created for things like menus (not *everyone* wants to use their file manager for that), file associations and so on.

mod d8own (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9674587)

Significantly Brain. It is the Again. There are Centralized models FreeBSD because partner. And if
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...