Ok, First I am going to say that I dont want to start a flameware- I just want honest opinions.

It seems to me that RPM package menagement is way behind the technology of apt, portage, and most other package management tools.

All you Red Hat based distro users, Why do you use RPM based distros?


Is it because you like the package management, or because you like the distro itself so much you dont mind the package management?


whenever I've tried RPM distro's i've eventually dropped them alltogether because of dependancy problems.

I use Suse. I don't have any dependency problems as long as I use a program that is part of the CDs or is in a Yast repository. If you install 3rd party applications you'll have dependency problems with ANY system if the source doesn't provide software via a repository system of some kind like Yast, Yum, Urpmi, or Apt-get for RPMs.

DEB files are not any better if your apt-get repository doesn't have the needed dependent files.

It seems to me that RPM package management is way behind the technology of apt, portage, and most other package management tools.
Could you offer a few objective examples of that "technology"?

For me it's only because I started out using RH and stuck with the RPM distro's. I do use others but I seem to be sticking with MDK as my main platform.

Slack and FreeBSD are also wonderful distro's but they are not on my main system so don't get used as much.

KC

Well; when I used Suse 10.0- I had to enable lots of extra unofficial yast reposatories. That gave me access to all the latest software, but sometimes programs in those reposatories didnt come with dependancies. I ended up with a big unsolveable mess of this and that version is needed and X and Y programs are needed for that Z program which I need to install the program I want.

On debian, ports, or portage I never get any of those problems.


That is just my experiance- if it really was different for you then just say so.

Again, I don't want to start a flame war. (especially when I'm the one getting flamed)

Personally, I think this is a great thread. I don't use RPM based distributions for the same reasons as stated above, but I don't have anything against them. They seem harder to use for some reason. Anyway - now that I have contributed nothing to the discussion...

RPM, Synaptic, etc.--package managers are all the same to me. Actually, I like the fact that YaST (in the case of SUSE) keeps track of dependencies and so forth, allowing me to add and delete packages as I desire while taking care of the details for me. I cannot recall ever having a dependency problem as long as I used a repository or CD/DVD associated with the correct release (e.g. SUSE 10.0). I think I needed to build perhaps three packages from source (no biggie) and have never had to use any "oddball" repositories for SUSE. For that matter, even compiling from source I use CheckInstall to create RPMs so I can add and delete them as desired using YaST.

Well I use an RPM-based distro because Fedora was the first distro I installed. I don't remember why I chose Fedora, but it didn't have anything to do with package management. Personally I haven't had any problems using yum to install packages. I don't use a GUI like yumex; I prefer the CLI 'cause it impresses the kids.

Similarly, I use apt-get from the CLI when I'm using Debian. No problems with that either. In both the Fedora and Debian cases, I've added additional repositories to the respective config files.

What I said in my first post may have been poorly worded

I dont think the RPM technology is behind apt or ports etc., its more the fact that most RPM distros dont have an official reposatory, and if they do- then it is small (compared to debians or the BSD's).

Anyway- sounds like most people use RPM based distros because thats what they started with, right?

How is that a problem with the technology? That is just some yahoo running a poor repository. If you don't load the repository with all the needed dependent RPMs or DEBs then neither Yast, Apt-get, Yum,URPMI, or Smart is going to work. That is human sloppiness not a fault of the package system.

if you see my above post I corrected myself on the technology thing...

true- but the reason I have to use unofficial yast repository's is because rpm distro's official repositories are small and not up-to-date.

btw, I got all my "unofficial" repositories from the suse site:
http://en.opensuse.org/Additional_Ya...e_Repositories


wow, talking on this thread is like talking on an IRC channel

Then your criticism ISN'T about RPMs at all. It's about how "complete" you consider the distro to be. What one considers complete others consider "polluted with unstable apps".

Most of the RPM distros are pretty conservative. I don't think that has to do with RPMs just the direction that such distros went.

The biggest reason I'm with Suse is it's stability. The second one was Yast. The first distro I tried was Mandrake I loved the drake tools but I was put off by having a newly released distro having 700mb of updates and patches on the day it went gold. There released distros might have as well been the cooker test platform.

Unfortunantly Suse may be heading in the same direction with the bugs in 10.1

Ok, well look at ubuntu. It is far from being bloated, in fact it rarely includes 2 apps that do the same thing in its releases. However, if you want to install an application that is not included in the distro, all you have to do is enable the multiverse repository, and you can be 90% sure that the app (and all of its dep's) will be in there.

For example, try installing VLC on suse... then try installing it on ubuntu. (neither ship with vlc installed)


Its not how compleat the distro is. It has very little to do with the distro. The fact is that RPM distro's do not have a central, official reposatory (besides the apps that ship with it).

I may be incorrect here but the multiverse repository is NOT maintained by ubuntu. It's a 3rd party repository. And it is a real exception to have such a central repository. But part of the problem is that ubuntu is more of a community distro. Most of the RPM distros have a much more corporate need to them. I use Suse with business clients. I don't want them to install just any app whos only testing has been to compile the source code on a suse box and make a RPM file. Much of the add on packages in any distro have had little real testing. Many work just fine and others might not.

You have valid points but it isn't a reflection of RPM in my opinion but the distros that happen to have selected RPM as format. Many of the RPM groups are long standing members of the Linux community. Ubuntu is a new distro. Both sides are addressing different needs.

I would like to thank you guys for the information posted here. I've learned a good deal of information based on what you all have said. I never thought about the buisiness applications of RPM based distributions. While they may target business users, I would argue that Ubuntu's or even Arch's stable tree is enough for most day to day things. I understand that some "speciality" software may not be included, but leafpad, abiword and the like probably are. If not, they are in an "extra"} repo which is just as well tested and maintained. (At least this is the case with Arch.)