LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This 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.

Notices


View Poll Results: What is your preferred Linux Package Management System?
Conary 0 0%
dpkg / APT 160 45.98%
Pacman 27 7.76%
Portage 17 4.89%
RPM / urpmi 10 2.87%
RPM / YUM 50 14.37%
RPM / ZYpp 12 3.45%
tgz / pkgtools 26 7.47%
tgz / slackpkg 36 10.34%
tgz / slapt-get 10 2.87%
Voters: 348. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-16-2014, 05:19 AM   #16
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900

Rep: Reputation: 637Reputation: 637Reputation: 637Reputation: 637Reputation: 637Reputation: 637

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVenger View Post
Apt may be a good tool also, however it is messy to have to remember apt-get, apt-cache, dpkg, etc...
I would suggest the average user doesn't have to remember any of these. dpkg/apt are the core of the package management system but the average user (meaning Mr and Mrs Joe-sephine Average and family) would probably never use a command line to install/remove a package. In his 4 years of using Ubuntu my father never used anything apart from Synaptic (and Update Manager) when managing packages on his system. Synaptic is able to do everything the average user requires. If they did need to use a command line the legion of Debian (and derivatives) users would be able to assist.
 
Old 09-16-2014, 05:35 AM   #17
fatmac
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Upper Hale, Surrey/Hants Border, UK
Posts: 3,807

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I've stayed with Debian based systems because they have always had very good package management.
(Be it dpkg, apt, or synaptic.)
The structure of their packages also allows you to extract them with ease.
 
Old 09-16-2014, 06:22 AM   #18
Germany_chris
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Wiesbaden, Germany
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,053

Rep: Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492Reputation: 492
Pacman
 
Old 09-16-2014, 06:35 AM   #19
dcmores
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Distribution: Fedora (latest), Mint in a VM
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
RPM / YUM does it for me mainly because I had to use it with RH Enterprise Linux at work. It made sense. I have seen dpkg / APT in other distro's like Mint. It works, but I have found it difficult to follow when I try to relate its operation to RPM / YUM.
 
Old 09-16-2014, 07:24 AM   #20
fatmac
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Upper Hale, Surrey/Hants Border, UK
Posts: 3,807

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I think once you get to know a package management system it will become your favourite, simply because you would have to learn another system, so basically it will come down to which Distro you go with.
 
Old 09-16-2014, 07:44 AM   #21
tjf
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1
Gentoo's Portage emerge command
 
Old 09-16-2014, 07:47 AM   #22
JWSmythe
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2012
Location: Various
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
Having used Slackware I have come to the conclusion that if you're going to have a minimalist package management system, in other words let the user sort out dependencies etc, then why even have a package management system.
It's actually better for you, if you think about it.

You may have built your own dependencies, without building a Slackware package (like from slackbuilds.org, or doing it yourself). I've had problems with dependency checking in various distros because they decide they're impossible to satisfy, even though they are satisfied. Sure, they usually have a flag to skip it, but what else will that break?

I've had lots of situations, especially with some of the distros (which I won't name, but you should be able to guess) that are all about backporting patches to 5+ year old versions. The old lib is buggy, or exploitable, so I (or someone before me) manually installed the package from the author's sources.

Oh, so libxyz.so.1.2.3 isn't there, you don't want to go? But it calls libxyz.so.1, and the current libxyz.so.1.15.99 is fully compatible. Don't bug me about the failed dependency. If I skip the dependency check, now I don't get the other dozen packages that they made mandatory even though they're amazingly obscure. Why should I need cyrus-sasl-lib, when it doesn't use it? Oh because there's a dependency on another lib which crosses with another dependency for a package we don't even want to use, that then needed cyrus-sasl-lib. I'm using that one as an example, because I remember it's come up more than once.

Generally, I use it to see if there is an official Slackware package for something, and/or I'm just doing something quick. I use a lot of SBo packages, and I usually update them for current if they aren't maintained or just aren't updated yet. It's pretty easy for my network since we have everything up to Slack64 14.1 now.

At some point, the unnamed distro becomes more work than the Slackware and SBo route.

LFS is a pretty extreme solution for not wanting to deal with an idiosyncrasy of one package manager. Well, assuming you're doing it right and going to every author's site to get current. I see there are build scripts to do it all (?) for you.
 
Old 09-16-2014, 07:48 AM   #23
Dawn262
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2013
Location: Cocoa, Florida, USA
Distribution: Ubuntu 18.04
Posts: 9

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Go with what you know!

I started with Ubuntu and Synaptic. Tried most of the others, but for me the tried and true (and easy) works best.
 
Old 09-16-2014, 08:03 AM   #24
Bill Gates 666
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Cambridge
Distribution: Arch, Gentoo, OpenSUSE
Posts: 70

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samoth View Post
Paludis' (http://paludis.exherbo.org/) package format on Exherbo is quite nice. I picked Portage since that's as close as I could get. I highly recommend people look into some of Exherbo's ideas -- they're all improvements on things Gentoo has done poorly.
Hi Samoth, great insight (more positive than the usual guff comments) - I'll have to check this out Portage is quite elegant - but nobody could excuse it of being fast

Thanks
 
Old 09-16-2014, 08:06 AM   #25
manlydan
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Charles, LA
Distribution: Arch Linux x86_64
Posts: 40

Rep: Reputation: 15
Definitely pacman. I started with pacman when I needed a package manager for my LFS system. It was extremely easy to adapt to my own purposes. Whenever I made the move to 64 bit, I decided it would be more work than I have time for to keep up with a scratch system, and I liked how easy it is to work with pacman, so I just made the switch to Arch Linux and haven't looked back.
 
Old 09-16-2014, 08:16 AM   #26
szboardstretcher
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: Detroit, MI
Distribution: GNU/Linux systemd
Posts: 4,237

Rep: Reputation: 1655Reputation: 1655Reputation: 1655Reputation: 1655Reputation: 1655Reputation: 1655Reputation: 1655Reputation: 1655Reputation: 1655Reputation: 1655Reputation: 1655
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_agon View Post
My first thought was 'Synaptic', but I can't see it on the list

The feature I like the most is the easy accessible history (log) of package updates, just in case I need to roll back some "upgrade".
yum history list

will get you that in Centos/Red Hat.
 
Old 09-16-2014, 08:20 AM   #27
redcat15
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2012
Location: Russia
Distribution: Linux Gentoo
Posts: 41

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
portage
 
Old 09-16-2014, 08:23 AM   #28
geraldjean
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2010
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: 0
Preferred package manager.

synaptic
 
Old 09-16-2014, 08:27 AM   #29
colin.p
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa Canada
Distribution: ubuntu 14.04 LTS
Posts: 12

Rep: Reputation: 0
Well of course...

...because I use ubuntu and have used it exclusively since Intrepid, I would have to choose dpkg/apt as the best installer(especially for newcomers coming from a windows environment). It is simply very easy to use, especially installing a deb package, just click and let it install. After a while, then even "apt-get install" becomes almost second nature.

Then again, I suppose it's whatever a person is used to.
 
Old 09-16-2014, 08:48 AM   #30
DerPflanz
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2014
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Whichever works. Package managers should take work away.

Just moved from Ubuntu to Fedora though, and I kind of miss Synaptic, especially the search function.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] Package Management System wanted ! entz Linux - General 13 07-28-2011 04:25 PM
Need help with making a package management system (doing Linux From Scratch) ReyJavikVI Linux - General 4 07-21-2009 07:48 AM
Need help coming up with a package management system ReyJavikVI Linux From Scratch 6 06-15-2009 03:04 PM
system update/package management N_A_J_M Ubuntu 1 09-03-2007 08:55 PM
Package Management System is Broken Ashex Ubuntu 3 06-09-2006 12:40 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration