[Techtalk] Re: Linux Versions

[Caitlyn Martin]

Hi, Kai,
> 
> Hey, I won't bash on anyone else for liking RPM. When it's working
> right and doing what it should, the thing is a fabulous time-saver and
> a boon to sysadmin-kind.

As someone who has done a lot of sysadmin work, I have to agree.
> 
> But when you get into dependency hell, it can just make you want to
> tear your hair out. Or tear your skull off. 

That hasn't happened to me much.  Oh, I've had to hunt down where a
certain library was packaged and download an additional RPM, but I've
probably wasted more time with poorly documented makefiles and
conflicting library requirements for different software in my day.

> I remember when they changed the 
> format of the RPM files, and I wound up in a ridiculous situation
> where I wanted to upgrade some package, but I couldn't without a
> higher version of RPM. The newer version of RPM required a higher
> glibc version, and the new glibc required the version of RPM that I
> couldn't install!

Red Hat 6.0 or 6.1 when rpm 4.x came out.  I do remember that nonsense
quite well.  Red Hat's answer was to tell you to upgrade to 6.2 or 7.0. 
They had dropped support for 6.0 and 6.1.  That *was* a pain, but it's
one that hasn't been repeated.  I think Red Hat got some major grief
over that fiasco.  FWIW, I still don't understand how they can support
5.2 but not 6.0 or 6.1.
> 
> In *my personal* experience, I think the thing has caused me more
> grief than it's saved me. But if it's saved you more hassles than it's
> caused you, then I truly am happy for you, and glad to know that
> someone's getting good use out of it.

I think I am.  I'm not saying there never have been hassles, but
compared to DLL hell in Windows, rpm dependency issues are truly minor.

All the best,
Caity