Linked by Mike Hearn on Fri 6th Dec 2002 08:37 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



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 !