Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
If you use package management tools like apt and yum, you reduce the likelihood of this so called "dependency hell". Frankly speaking part of it is caused by people who download packages from any and everywhere and they end up causing mayhem on their PC's.
Thanks for the response.
I put this, not only to mention the dependency problem but also what he has mention about running multiple versions of an application and uninstalling the program without any hassle. And mostly non user installation.
I beleive considering storage capacities available these days this will be the best thing to consider now.
I refuse to use rpm based distros. My distro of choice is Debian, the Sid branch. My reasons, apt is awesome, and Sid, while being the unstable branch, has had nothing other than the minor hiccup (example.. "Where'd my icons go? Oh, lemme downgrade that lib I just upgraded.. ah, there they are .", and has been stable as a rock for the most part. I've heard it said that, even though it's considered unstable, that it's more stable than most other distros stable branch. It's also quite up to date as far as software releases. I did use the testing branch for a while, but I have to reccomend that anyone looking at Debian choose either stable, or unstable, testing is really the least stable of the branches plus it does not get the security updates that stable and unstable do. If you're not quite comfy diving into Debian (I actually found it quite easy to get going with it, but then I too had fought with rpm for years, ymmv), give Ubuntu a spin, as it is very stable, friendly, and software is up to date (it's based on Debian Sid). If I ever start running into major problems with pure Sid, I'll jump to Ubuntu in a flash. Neither of these distros will give you the dependancy hell that an rpm based one will, plus I wanted to illustrate that you can have up to date software without going to the looooooooong install procedure that Gentoo requires. As far as having multiple versions of a program installed, I can't actually figure out why you would need that (though I'm sure someone has use for it, maybe feature x is broken or missing in newest version, but user wants both feature x and all new features?) so that has no meaning to me about distro choice based on package management.
Why is it that when there is an issue regarding rpm, some Debian users have to sing praises for apt and how switching to Debian will make everyones life perfect. Debian may have been the first distro to use apt, but apt has also been available for rpm based distros for a long time now. It works more or less the same as apt on Debian and dependencies are automatically resolved. Other tools that do a similar job to apt are yum, urpmi and even yast.
These days choosing a distro is more about personal preference rather than the package management tool it uses. If someone sticks to officially sanctioned rpm repositories, then chances of the so called "dependency hell" are virtually non existant. If you download untrusted packages that may not even have been built for your distro or current version then obviously you are bound to run into problems. It's the same as downloading debs from sources other than officially sanctioned Debian repositories, if they don't work, ask for additional packages to be installed or break things on your system who's to blame, you the person who's installed it or attempting to install it coz if you install it using the provided package management tools then chances of problems occurring are lowered.
Originally posted by reddazz
Why is it that when there is an issue regarding rpm, some Debian users have to sing praises for apt and how switching to Debian will make everyones life perfect. Debian may have been the first distro to use apt, but apt has also been available for rpm based distros for a long time now.
And which would you prefer to use, a distro based on that package management scheme (whichever that might be), or one that has had it tacked on? I never said anything about making anyones life perfect, I said I will no longer use rpm (as the article in question was about problems using rpm), then I commented on overcoming those limitation in the way I've chosen. The article posted mentioned Debian, so I gave my own account of it. Funny you should suggest that you can install apt on an rpm distro, and then in the same post talk about keeping to the official repositories. Where are the "official redhat .deb repositories" anyway? In an earlier post you even say yourself, and I quote...
Originally posted by reddazz
If you use package management tools like apt and yum, you reduce the likelihood of this so called "dependency hell".
I would think, that to have the best likelyhood of reducing dependancy hell by using these package managers that one would use a distro based around the one you want to use.
He's talking about apt being ported. For example, Slackware has a port of apt-get and it has nothing to do with .debs as it deals solely with Slacks tgz packages. As far as dependency hell, there is really not much to it. If you want an app, look at the web page or the readme and it will tell you exactly what it needs so you can see if you already have the dependencies or not. When I first started using linux, I ran into dependency problems every time I turned around ( due to having no idea what I was doing, going out on random mirrors and downloading random libs, etc..) but after using linux for years you realize if you do things the right way dependency hell isn't much of an issue.
Originally posted by __J
He's talking about apt being ported. For example, Slackware has a port of apt-get and it has nothing to do with .debs as it deals solely with Slacks tgz packages.
Ah, I understand now. Having never used a port of apt, I just had trouble getting my head around how that would work (or why you would want it, due to my misunderstanding, sorry about that and thanks for being gentle with the clue stick lol). I used rpm exclusively till.. hmmm, I think Mandrake 8.2 was the last rpm based distro I used, precursed by RH and Caldera, and before that Slack 2.. though that didn't last long enough to count, got x running and lost interest in fvwm cause I was clueless hehe. Every single rpm based distro I used gave me some kind of dependancy problems (and it's amazing I stuck through it). Now running Debian for a while, and not hit a single glitch. Is it any wonder I want to sing praises to it? I'm a happy camper . hehe