Linux package management ! how many??
 

.. how many different package management system are out there? am so confused..:confused: where can i get a guide on how to use all these package management systems? i always get stuck somewhere when i start using linux..:cry:

I would think there are 3 Main systems..

RPM based - Redhat Package Manager
Portage - Source based for Gentoo
APT - Debian based systems use APT which is actually a front end for the debian package (dpkg) system..


There are various front ends for these package managers if you know how ot use the base one the variations aren't so daunting.

Package management system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Linux package formats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia LinuxPlanet - Tutorials - Linux Package Management: Keeping Up with the Times - Introduction to Package Types
http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/tutorials/4161/1/

thanks farslayer and craigevil...thanks a lot :)

package managers are per distro so however many distro you use is the number of package managers you need to learn or be aware of. Apt, Yum, Yast and Pacman (used in Arch) come to mind immediately. Other distros may have some variations of these. First place to look is man page and then you can look at the web for comprehensive howto. I know Apt, Yum and Pacman have online howto. Google is your friend.

Here's one for apt

Here's one for Pacman

Tux,

which one is the best ?why is it so difficult for these people to make a standard single packaging format that works on different linux distros? :scratch:

Which package management system you have will depend on what distro you use. Many distros use one of a few common systems, although there are often multiple front ends to a given package management system.

This is rather frustrating for software vendors who wish to provide software on Linux systems. There have been attempts to rectify this situation by creating meta-package managers, but so far, no cigar.

Which car is the best?
Which computer is the best?
Which cereal is the best?
The best choice (for you)is very often the last one you try.

"These people"--to whom are you referring? Linux and Open Source is the product of many people--some of who communicate with each other, and some of who follow **some** standards. Mostly, however, it is all about choice.

All seriousness aside, the BEST package manager is Synaptic GUI for the apt/deb system. And that's the truth.....;)

Because the distros are, as you say, different. There are standards in gnu/linux distros, but they aren't restrictive to the point of making all distros identical, which is a good thing. The healthy evolution of things in the linux world arises from the freedom of variety and experimentation.

The baseline standard is the tar.gz source package.

You have to understand that the wide range of choices you get with linux are both natural and inevitable. For gross simplification arising from the elimination of choice and control, well, there are other os's for that.

.tar.gz is not a package format---it is a combo of 2 file management formats.

*.tar, *.gz, or *.tar.gz can contain ANYTHING---rpms, debs, source code, your Christmas lists, photos, etc..........

For some reason, this makes me think of a new catch phrase:
Windows: The OS for people who don't know what an OS is and/or don't care.

The worst part of the truth about your statement is that it involves so-called Network Administrators who decide "who will go and who will stayyy".

In answer to the package question, I'm a semi-newbie (more or less), and it took me about 2 years to understand what the RPM means, what the terms "package" and "tarball" mean.
The linux community is great at helping, but not great at standardizing any concept of what really needs to be standardized yet. It takes time. Windows has had the 'all great and powerful' Bill of Oz to standardize for 20 years, yet they still can't control their own operating system's design.

Trying not to rant. Recent observation and frustrations tell me that the Smart package manager works in Suse, but you shouldn't be trying to use SuSe 10.1 at all. Wait until 10.2 or stay with something in the 9.x range for a while.
Yast under those packages works.
The new ZRM or whatever it's called (zen?) is apparently a clustertruck when tied to yast.

The most important thing is to not try and get the newest and best (unlike Windoze, where you are forced into upgrades for virus reasons), because it takes time to work out bugs in Linux through the community.
Once you have a stable system, don't monkey with it and it won't monkey with you.
Penguins like the weather just the way it is.

Please don't use 'Windows' and 'Standards' in the same sentence. Those two concepts are diametrically opposed when it comes to Microsoft.

As someone who has been implementing and supporting Microsoft solutions since the DOS days it's very apparent that Microsoft only standardizes things long enough till the next version comes out and then file formats no longer work between basic applications like word processors.. and that's on the low end.

I'm doing my damnedest to escape the windows world at work and move to a position where it's only a minor player instead of a major pain in my side. I'd really like to escape before I have to worry about supporting their latest and greatest.

MS is a bad example for standards.

WGA problems anyone ? Oh yes there's a prefect update mechanism. [/sarcasm]

Familiarity with any product makes it seem like it's the better way of doing things, and in Linux all the different approaches have their cheerleaders. Whether it's portage, manual compile, rpm, apt, yast, urpmi whatever the package and/or mechanism. Truth be told they all have advantages and disadvantages. you just need to decide which ones fit you..

Personally I like living on the edge.. the edge in Linux has been more stable for me than new MS OS releases over the years, where the standard has become "don't move to the new version until at least SP1 or SP2 is out.. " Can't tell you how many times I have heard that from many an IT guy.

I use both OS's extensively so it's not like I'm making this up.

and in order to make this post somewhat on topic.. Personally I love the apt system used by Debian.

When push comes to shove, you use the package manager that you like. That's the beauty of the GNU and open source community. You get to choose what you want to use. It tends to be a bit daunting for newbies in the beginning, but believe me, it gets much easier.

I've used RPM, Apt, Portage, and Pacman. (in various Red Hat, Debian, Gentoo, and Arch distros) I settled on Pacman ,but that's more to do with me loving the Arch distro. It really depends on how much you want to package manager to do, and if you want a gui for it or not. (there's a gui for pacman, I don't use it) Apt-get is a good standard to use (as is debian, or any of it's base derivatives). I didn't like the way it handled dependencies, and really like the way Pacman handles them.

My suggestion, as with everything, try them out. The only substitute for ignorance is experience. :) Have fun!

That was how I used it..I think. ;-)

Thanks. Just by making the list in your response, you emphasize the problem very well. Living on the edge is great when you are young and can stay up all night with glazed eyeballs, but if Linux is going to become useful on a broader scale, it has to be useful to people who have other work to do than setting up computers. The whole point of a computer is to be a tool, not a toy. All this mucking about with the toolbox and the color of the chrome plating is killing the future.