[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mageia-discuss
Subject:    Re: [Mageia-discuss] rpm or deb?
From:       Giuseppe_Ghibò <ghibomgx () gmail ! com>
Date:       2010-09-27 9:11:09
Message-ID: AANLkTim1B=Ow4vVo1KhthmwTwEgtLK1yTx3vrOOTuapH () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

2010/9/26 Kristoffer Grundstr=F6m <kristoffer.grundstrom1983@gmail.com>

>  Why not create a new format with the best of both worlds (if possible)?
>
> .mageia ?
>
> [...]
>

Creating a new format is not that easy (though not impossible). Current .rp=
m
or .deb are package formats which started development several years ago.
Consider also that switching to another package format would require
re-training for the packagers who might be be used to the .spec file only.

>From technical point of view we have to distinguish the package format,
which might be .deb, or .rpm from the package frontends (apt, urpmi, yum,
emerge, etc.) which retrieves packages and their dependency packages from
the repositories. Actually even on mandriva, some alternative frontend to
urpmi can be used (IIRC there is "smart"). Speaking about frontends, I had
the "feeling" that apt bundled with .deb was a little bit faster than
urpmi+rpm, especially on global upgrades of a whole distro on not so new
hardware (e.g. an i586...), i.e. upgrading for instance from a mandriva
2010.0 to a 2010.1 or from a ubuntu 9.04 to 9.10. But maybe it's because
.deb is doing fewer checks on files, dunno. Remaining on the .rpm world, th=
e
bundle urpmi+rpm seems to me also faster than yum+rpm.

IMHO it could be also taken under advisement the rpm5 format (
http://www.rpm5.org), that someone already cited for mandriva some time ago=
.
IIRC it should be faster than rpm4, and would allow parallel package
installation.

If comparisons should be made for a decision, maybe on the wiki it could be
added a table with the basic features of such tools (e.g. performance, LSB
compliance, coerency, update, docs, compression, etc.), and the advantage o=
f
switching to a new one or a missed feature.

G.

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<br>2010/9/26 Kristoffer Grundström <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a \
href="mailto:kristoffer.grundstrom1983@gmail.com">kristoffer.grundstrom1983@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; \
border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">


  
    
    
  
  <div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    Why not create a new format with the best of both worlds (if
    possible)?<br>
    <br>
    .mageia ?<br>
    <br>
    [...]</div></blockquote><div> </div></div>Creating a new format is not that easy \
(though not impossible). Current .rpm or .deb are package formats which started \
development several years ago. Consider also that switching to another package format \
would require re-training for the packagers who might be be used to the .spec file \
only.<br> <br>From technical point of view we have to distinguish the package format, \
which might be .deb, or .rpm from the package frontends (apt, urpmi, yum, emerge, \
etc.) which retrieves packages and their dependency packages from the repositories. \
Actually even on mandriva, some alternative frontend to urpmi can be used (IIRC there \
is &quot;smart&quot;). Speaking about frontends, I had the &quot;feeling&quot; that \
apt bundled with .deb was a little bit faster than urpmi+rpm, especially on global \
upgrades of a whole distro on not so new hardware (e.g. an i586...), i.e. upgrading \
for instance from a mandriva 2010.0 to a 2010.1 or from a ubuntu 9.04 to 9.10. But \
maybe it&#39;s because .deb is doing fewer checks on files, dunno. Remaining on the \
.rpm world, the bundle urpmi+rpm seems to me also faster than yum+rpm.<br> <br>IMHO \
it could be also taken under advisement the rpm5 format (<a \
href="http://www.rpm5.org">http://www.rpm5.org</a>), that someone already cited for \
mandriva some time ago. IIRC it should be faster than rpm4, and would allow parallel \
package installation.<br> <br>If comparisons should be made for a decision, maybe on \
the wiki it could be added a table with the basic features of such tools (e.g. \
performance, LSB compliance, coerency, update, docs, compression, etc.), and the \
advantage of switching to a new one or a missed feature.<br> <br>G.<br><br>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]