Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 6th Jan 2008 07:41 UTC, submitted by Sabz
General Development After seven months of comprehensive development, the popular Unix software packaging tool RPM Package Manager (RPM) was released as stable version 5.0.0. This version builds portably on a wide variety of Unix platforms and includes initial support for XAR as a package format, among other features.
Order by: Score:
Real deal?
by handy on Sun 6th Jan 2008 11:18 UTC
handy
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is not the official rpm 5 right? If I remember correct it was somekind of fork? In other words will Redhat start using it?

Anyways RPM (with yum) is a rock-solid package system which never failed on us.

Edited 2008-01-06 11:33

Reply Score: 1

RE: Real deal?
by lezard on Sun 6th Jan 2008 11:37 UTC in reply to "Real deal?"
lezard Member since:
2005-10-11

That is a good question: will Mandriva, Novell/OpenSUSE and Red Hat/Fedora use it? I'm very happy to use urpmi with rpm.

Another question, what is exactly the XAR format?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Real deal?
by IceCubed on Sun 6th Jan 2008 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Real deal?"
IceCubed Member since:
2005-07-01

RE: Another question, what is exactly the XAR format?

Why xar is interesting
http://code.google.com/p/xar/wiki/whyxar

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Real deal?
by raboof on Sun 6th Jan 2008 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Real deal?"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

Looks like xar is more an alternative to formats like zip and tar+gz, rather than a package format in itself.

Looks like RPM5 uses xar and defines a new RPM-like packaging format on top of it. Not sure what problem that's intended to solve.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Real deal?
by superman on Sun 6th Jan 2008 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Real deal?"
superman Member since:
2006-08-01

> will Mandriva, Novell/OpenSUSE and Red Hat/Fedora use it?

No.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Real deal?
by mkone on Sun 6th Jan 2008 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Real deal?"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

Redhat could always change their minds. They have shown that they are not averse to doing so in the past (see inclusion of mono).

If it turns out to be much better, whilst maintaining compatibility with older rpms, then it is not inconceivable that they could adopt it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Real deal?
by sbergman27 on Sun 6th Jan 2008 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Real deal?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Redhat could always change their minds. They have shown that they are not averse to doing so in the past (see inclusion of mono).
"""

There is no mono in RedHat. Perhaps you are thinking of Fedora.

At any rate, it would be a mistake, and a step backwards, to allow such a critical component to be controlled by such an uncooperative developer. There was a reason that RedHat terminated Mr. Johnson. And there was a reason that Fedora spearheaded forking the project.

The XFree86->Xorg fork, painful as it was, has proven highly beneficial. In the same way, I believe that this fork will also result in long term benefits to the community.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Real deal?
by superman on Sun 6th Jan 2008 12:02 UTC in reply to "Real deal?"
superman Member since:
2006-08-01

> If I remember correct it was somekind of fork?

Jeff Johnson RPM : http://rpm5.org/ .

Red Hat/Fedora/SuSE/Mandriva RPM : http://www.rpm.org/ .

One of the reasons of Jeff Johnson fork :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=119185

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Real deal?
by gilboa on Sun 6th Jan 2008 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Real deal?"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

The full story:
http://lwn.net/Articles/196523/

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Real deal?
by marcusoverhagen on Mon 7th Jan 2008 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Real deal?"
marcusoverhagen Member since:
2005-08-20

Different side of the story: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/6/5/101431/9311

While I seriously doubt that Jeff wrote that, it's still a funny read.

Marcus

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Real deal?
by gilboa on Mon 7th Jan 2008 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Real deal?"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

... I found it far less funny.
Sadly enough his current employer doesn't have access to this blog.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Real deal?
by Soulbender on Mon 7th Jan 2008 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Real deal?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Heh. Is Jeff Johnson an alter ago for Tuomo Valkonen?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Real deal?
by sorpigal on Mon 7th Jan 2008 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Real deal?"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

This is very funny. I just tried this with a Debian box that has read only /usr and... aptitude update worked, install failed, remove failed. No package db inconsistencies were introduced. Installing and removing after /usr was remount,rw worked normally.

Gotta love RPM!

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Real deal?
by buff on Sun 6th Jan 2008 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Real deal?"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

wow, reading through that bug was kind of painful. It is unfortunate that people respond in a work environment with nastiness. There is no need for that. Johnson makes a reasonable argument that typing 'yum update' should not leave your system in a fragmented state if only part of a package is installed. I would think transactional accounting would be a requirement for updating a system. It makes me relieved that I got out of the software industry. It is annoying when good ideas get blocked based on egos and bad middle management.

Edited 2008-01-06 16:05

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Real deal?
by raboof on Sun 6th Jan 2008 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Real deal?"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

Johnson makes a reasonable argument that typing 'yum update' should not leave your system in a fragmented state if only part of a package is installed.


Ur, that was the argument put forth by everyone in that thread *except* Johnson, right? ;) .

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Real deal?
by gilboa on Mon 7th Jan 2008 05:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Real deal?"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think you understood what was Johnson said (and why he got canned.)

The reporter claimed that the RPM state must always be consistent. RPM should have failed gracefully when trying to install a package on RO storage. (instead of being corrupted - read: stating that a certain application is installed when it isn't)
Johnston claimed that if the user is stupid enough to try and install RPMs on a read only storage, the RPM is not required to keep a consistent state when things get busted.

Software 101 - no matter how stupid your user get, your application must not crash and/or stay in an inconsistent state.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 4

v RE[4]: Real deal?
by n3npq on Mon 7th Jan 2008 07:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Real deal?"
RE[5]: Real deal?
by gilboa on Mon 7th Jan 2008 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Real deal?"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

What?
What does your post have to do with this thread? (beyond trying hard to get people to mod it down to -5 as off-topic)

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Real deal?
by gilboa on Mon 7th Jan 2008 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Real deal?"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

EDIT: Checked who you are.

As a general rule, before you start threatening people with law-suites (I assume that this is the next logical step - once you finish sending your cease and desist messages) you should -really- check where they live and learn something (or two) about their local law.

Somehow your response here doesn't surprise me a bit given your past behavior.

- Gilboa

Edited 2008-01-07 12:53

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Real deal?
by gilboa on Mon 7th Jan 2008 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Real deal?"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Just so Mr. "Cease and desist"'s lawyer won't chase me into oblivion, please replace:
"(and why he got canned.)" with
"(and why, he was allegedly [according to certain sources] got canned)"

- Gilboa "hiding under a rock; switching off the Internet; changing my forwarding address to Iraq" Davara.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Real deal?
by n3npq on Mon 7th Jan 2008 08:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Real deal?"
Honk! Honk!
by Weeman on Sun 6th Jan 2008 13:12 UTC
Weeman
Member since:
2006-03-20

Popular Unix packaging format? Since when's Linux Unix?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Honk! Honk!
by Googol on Sun 6th Jan 2008 13:29 UTC in reply to "Honk! Honk!"
Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

Since Linus forked it ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Honk! Honk!
by superman on Sun 6th Jan 2008 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Honk! Honk!"
superman Member since:
2006-08-01

> Since Linus forked it ;)

Linus did not fork it. See SCO.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Honk! Honk!
by Nossie on Sun 6th Jan 2008 14:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Honk! Honk!"
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

You know it's nice that Novell won and all... but now that Novell owns SCOs intellectual property.... is there really anything left worth owning?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Honk! Honk!
by boblowski on Mon 7th Jan 2008 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Honk! Honk!"
boblowski Member since:
2007-07-23

Since Linus forked it ;)

I think the tongue in cheek part was missed by 1 or 2 people here. Plus 1, back to 0.

On topic: The Red Hat/Fedora/SuSE/Mandriva kind of RPM has never failed us. I am not sure if I fully understand the benefits of this RPM5, but if it adds something, why not?

Cheers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Honk! Honk!
by n3npq on Tue 8th Jan 2008 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Honk! Honk!"
n3npq Member since:
2008-01-07

For details of what rpm-5.0 adds, try reading the rationale
for adoption of rpm-5.0 by OpenPKG at

http://trainofthoughts.org/blog/2008/01/06/rpm5-vs-rpm/

Reply Score: 0

RE: Honk! Honk!
by CrLf on Sun 6th Jan 2008 18:02 UTC in reply to "Honk! Honk!"
CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

Well, rpm is available out-of-the box on AIX...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Honk! Honk!
by Doc Pain on Mon 7th Jan 2008 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Honk! Honk!"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Well, rpm is available out-of-the box on AIX..."

And AIX is a UNIX. Another UNIX is FreeBSD where RPM is available, too.

But I may ask a question. The article's description is "RPM Package Manager (RPM)". The FreeBSD ports collection lists RPM as "The Red Hat Package Manager". So, is RPM the correct abbreviation for this title or is it an recursive acronym (RPM = RPM Package Manager)?

Regarding UNIX vs. Linux, see linear algebra: the "is a", "is part of" and "is like a" identity, subset and similarity relations. :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Honk! Honk!
by mikad on Mon 7th Jan 2008 05:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Honk! Honk!"
mikad Member since:
2007-12-28

The original abbreviation was Red Hat Package Manager, but later they changed it to RPM Package Manager.

Reply Score: 2

Who maintains RPM?
by aaronb on Sun 6th Jan 2008 17:10 UTC
aaronb
Member since:
2005-07-06

What is the official version of RPM?

Is it...
http://www.rpm.org/
http://rpm5.org/
http://wraptastic.org/blog/

Reply Score: 1

RE: Who maintains RPM?
by bpepple on Sun 6th Jan 2008 17:33 UTC in reply to "Who maintains RPM?"
bpepple Member since:
2006-01-16

the official rpm is at: http://www.rpm.org/

rpm5 is a fork.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Who maintains RPM?
by bthylafh on Sun 6th Jan 2008 18:35 UTC in reply to "Who maintains RPM?"
Looks nice
by siki_miki on Sun 6th Jan 2008 19:00 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

A fork, which might catch up if a disto embraces it. (e.g. if someone at Red Hat/Suse/Mandriva notices). A problem might be that it was removed RPMv3 package support which is a LSB requirement (but that can be handled by a separate RPM version even in the same system).

Now I believe deb/dpkg has advantage because it doesn't have N forks and support dist-upgrades (to upgrade to the new upstream version), while rpm's big advantage IMHO is multi-arch package support. So both have their set of advantages and drawbacks.

Maybe big distros should overcome the NIH syndrome and concentrate on creating a new common package standard (what ever happened to deb2 proposal?) as a base for their systems, because now both are very similar. I think big point should be to add to it a system for signed 3rd party and per-user (installed for a local user(s)) packages, a la ZeroInstall.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Looks nice
by AdamW on Sun 6th Jan 2008 19:29 UTC in reply to "Looks nice"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

We (Mandriva) originally used rpm5.org RPM, when the fork happened. We have recently switched to using rpm.org.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Looks nice
by ikeX on Sun 6th Jan 2008 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Looks nice"
ikeX Member since:
2007-03-28

Could you tell us why you have done that?

I have nothing against rpm.org or rpm5.org since I am an old Debian user. I'm just curious...

Kind regards,

Edited 2008-01-06 20:47

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Looks nice
by AdamW on Sun 6th Jan 2008 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Looks nice"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

I prefer not to discuss it as Jeff is on record as saying that I know nothing about the topic, which I wouldn't like to disagree with. ;) You might like to ask Pixel, who made the change. pixel AT mandriva D O T com.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Looks nice
by sbergman27 on Sun 6th Jan 2008 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Looks nice"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Despite the project's loss of Mandriva, Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, and Suse, it has managed to retain such popular Linux powerhouses as CAOS Linux, PLD Linux, and... well... CAOS Linux and PLD Linux.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Looks nice
by n3npq on Mon 7th Jan 2008 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Looks nice"
RE[3]: Looks nice
by SReilly on Mon 7th Jan 2008 10:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Looks nice"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Dude, seriously, lay off!

As far as I and many others are concerned, AdamW is a well respected contributer to this forum. Your sad attempts to sound like you have any legal muscle when it comes to people points you disagree with is pathetic.

Your not making any friends pretending you have some weight to throw around. This is an online forum, if you don't like whats being said, go somewhere else.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Looks nice
by Soulbender on Mon 7th Jan 2008 10:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Looks nice"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

you have no right to use my name in the first person (as if you know me) in public.


Do you have the right to use his nickname (AdamW)? Seriously, WTF?
He didnt even use your name, whatever the it is, in the post you responded to.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[5]: Looks nice
by n3npq on Mon 7th Jan 2008 11:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Looks nice"
RE[6]: Looks nice
by gilboa on Mon 7th Jan 2008 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Looks nice"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

I -really- don't get you.
Do you really believe that posting threatening messages on open (or closed) forums will get your RPM fork accepted into Fedora/SUSE/Mandriva/etc?

You do understand how it makes you look, right?

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Looks nice
by n3npq on Tue 8th Jan 2008 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Looks nice"
n3npq Member since:
2008-01-07

There's a bit more to rpm-5.0 than links to kuroshin and
bugzilla #119185. The issues are several years old if
you bothered to look at times and dates.

Why do you think I care what rpm version Fedora, SuSE, Mandriva
or any other vendor distribution uses? rpm5.org is now a full fledged,
vendor neutral, OSS project. That was never the case when I worked
@redhat.com, and (if you look at the membership and roadmaps
at the"official" rpm.org site) is very much not the case now.

For those interested in the differences between rpm.org and rpm5.org,
I again point to the rationale behind OpenPKG's decision to assist
setting up infrastructure for rpm5.org:

http://trainofthoughts.org/blog/2008/01/06/rpm5-vs-rpm/

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Looks nice
by Soulbender on Mon 7th Jan 2008 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Looks nice"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I'm pretty sure using your name familiarly is not against the law anywhere.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Looks nice
by sbergman27 on Sun 6th Jan 2008 20:39 UTC in reply to "Looks nice"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

A fork, which might catch up if a disto embraces it. (e.g. if someone at Red Hat/Suse/Mandriva notices).
...
Maybe big distros should overcome the NIH syndrome and concentrate

"""

Please read Gilboa's link, above.

Reply Score: 2