[techtalk] Re: rpms r bad?

[Martin.Caitlyn at epamail.epa.gov]

> Overall they make my life and upgrading, etc,
> significantly simpler and a lot more organized.
> I had found them to be a useful way to keep track
> of what I have installed, and to uninstall things that
> I don't use/need anymore. Not to mention upgrading
> existing files, etc...

Hi, Walt,

I agree with your *positive* comments about rpm.  I have always liked it.
I understand some of the problems that can lead to "RPM hell", mainly
because Red Hat has changed the rpm database structure over time.  Also, it
is entirely possible to get effectively conflicting dependency problems,
which force you to use the --nodeps or --force options, in which case you
really do have to understand the consequences of what you are doing, which
most newbies don't.  I can probably list a bunch of other issues I have run
into, but for the most part rpm works very well and makes keeping track of
what version you are running and what packages you have pretty easy.

The advantage of compiling from source is that you get to change compile
time options to meet your personal needs.  For example, I have to change
where sudo logs to meet Agency standards, so I cannot use the rpm.  I also
have to keep up with the latest revs and patches to sudo, and unless there
is a whopping security hole usually Red Hat won't issue a new rpm.

I'm not going to comment on apt-get.  I haven't run Debian at home, and the
Agency I support is not at all open to changing distros, so I simply don't
know it.  I know people have a strong preference for it, and I, too, would
be curious to know if it's really a technical advantage or just a "Debian
is so cool" type thing.

Regards,
Cait

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caitlyn M. Martin             martin.caitlyn at epa.gov
Systems Analyst              (919) 541-4441
Lockheed Martin
(a contractor for the US EPA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------