Linked by Mike Hearn on Fri 6th Dec 2002 08:37 UTC
Linux If you've used Linux for more than ten minutes, you've almost certainly come across the nightmare that is package management. You know what I mean - dependancy hell has become legendary and it's no exagguration to say that one of the most offputting aspects of Linux for a new user is the lack of InstallShield type 3 click installs. This article looks at how we ended up in the quagmire of RPM and dependancy hell, and then moves on to talk about a possible solution in the form of autopackage. It takes a high level overview of how autopackage works and what it's capable of. If you want more technical details, check out the website. Finally, this article assumes only that you're interested, not that you have any Linux experience.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RPM glossed over; not properly represented.
by vm on Mon 9th Dec 2002 13:44 UTC

While I am no fan of RH or RPM, I feel that some of the dependancy problems can be overcome in RPM if the standard naming convention is faithfully followed; a standard naming convention does exist, for packages. I am not sure if such a standard exists for library/file names.

My biggest problem with RPM is you cannot choose where to install unless you change the '/' dir, which is not really an option. Backing up the database is also not trivial ( akin to backing up a registry) and is useless anyway if the filesystem changes. I should be able to backup say the DB, go to a different (vanilla) system/distro and say restore the DB and it should download files/packages and restore it to the same state !

Also, if you install s/w from tar.xx files or compile source and install, common on unix/linux, RPM is not very useful ( unless you build your own RPM).

O.S. developers MUST learn to standardize on libraries - everyone shouldn't create a branch of glibc, gtk, freetype, QT etc !