[ale] deb and rpm

[Chris Ricker]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, michael d. ivey wrote:

> debs can include binary files, rpms cannot (is that really true?)

That's not true.

> Many of the advantages of debs actually come from Debian policy, not the
> package format itself.

Many of the *differences* actually come from Debian policy.  Whether they're
advantages is a matter for debate (speaking as a Debian user who's had
overly complicated dependency / recommends / suggests loops bite me ;-).

> Disclaimer:  I'm a Debian developer.  I like deb.  And when it comes to
> building packages, I much prefer deb to rpm...rpms were a pain to make,
> debs are actually kinda fun.

Heh.  I personally find making rpms much easier and more straight-forward
than debs.  I run a mix of Debian and Red Hat boxes, depending on the use.  
There are things I like about Debian, but debs are definitely not one of
them.

There are also a few other differences; rpm, but not deb, supports triggers,
dependencies by file instead of package, support for special file types (so
that, for example, you can choose to uninstall documentation to save space),
etc.

later,
chris

-- 
Chris Ricker                                               kaboom at gatech.edu
                                              chris.ricker at genetics.utah.edu

--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.