Jump to content
yr2alex

APT for MDK?

Recommended Posts

linux_learner...cool down a bit. Go back and re-read everything that's been said. aRTee particularly has made some very strong points.

 

As for me, I *have* successfully installed Debian. Sure, it's good, but I didn't see any major advantage over another good distro. For several reasons, I decided to stay with a rpm-based distro. Anyway, after much playing around with apt and urpmi, my take on the whole urpmi-vs-apt thing is - I call it a toss-up. Properly used, both are pretty fool-proof. The old-wisdom statements about apt-get being the best just don't hold water anymore. Things change. Perceptions often don't keep up.

 

But that's just MHO, and who am I? I mean, I feel like a fairly experinced Linux user after 3 1/2 years, but I still couldn't hold a real guru's wrist pad. But I think you'd do well to heed an earlier suggestion to check out what Buchan Milne has had to say about urpmi. The guy probably knows more than everyone on this board put together, and you'd never convince him that apt is better. And check out what P.T. Breuer has had to say about urpmi vs apt also (I believe you have a personal problem with P.T., but he actually knows quite a bit and tries to help in his own special way, he just insists on people thinking for themselves). Do some research, but not at Debian or apt-for-rpm websites. Of course they're gonna say apt is better. What else would you expect?

Edited by Crashdamage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes aRTee has made some good points, to which i have not refuted. i was perfectly calm when typing that last post (i am not in such a good mood now, but thats not because of this discussion). i am simply saying aRTee has misunderstood what i have been saying.

 

you look at this and tell me what apt can do that urpmi cant. http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man8/apt-get.8.html

 

SEE ALSO

 

 

apt-cache(8), apt-cdrom(8), dpkg(8), dselect(8), sources.list(5), apt.conf(5), apt-config(8), The APT User's guide in /usr/share/doc/apt/, apt_preferences(5), the APT Howto.

 

urpmi http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/urpmi.php3

 

SEE ALSO

      urpmi.addmedia(8),  urpmi.update(8), urpmi.removemedia(8), autoirpm(8),

      gurpmi(8), urpmf(8), urpmq(8), rpmdrake(8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oooo...I'm missing all the fun :woot:

 

apt on debian can download source>compile>install

 

but I doubt the rpm version can do that. Other than that the only diff is that apt4rpm gives you gui options that are not available with urpm from gui (rpmdrake ...whatever)....but *most* of them are from cli or at least, the necessary ones are.

Edited by bvc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used BOTH extensively.

 

I have used mandrake on and off since I started using linux, and I used debian for a good 6 months.

 

This petty argument, -- sorry err 'debate' -- is really quite pointless.

 

They both accomplish their task well and adeptly, I never found one to be superior/inferior. I never found a feature missing in one or the other.

 

Besides, what should it matter 'which one is better' ? At the stages of development they both are at now, you may as welll argue 'emacs vs vi' -- you arent going to get a conclusion.

 

They both fullfill their requirements fine, just like emacs and vi, they both edit text. apt and urpm* both deal with packages.

 

 

 

 

And now if you wish, let the idiotic religious flamewar continue.

Edited by iphitus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes they do iphitus. they both do their jobs quite well. i think that apt has more options. i've already illustrated that with the afore mentioned man pages and howtos and such.

 

it really is a matter of preference.

 

i run suse, and i would love to add urpmi and emerge to my system, but then i love tinkering arround.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About me shouting

RTFM

this is not the standard RTFM to tell people to find their own answer. I just didn't feel like having to refute all the apt commands point by point by indicating the urpmi/f/q/e equivalent.

Please read the first post of linux_learner in this topic - and sequential ones. He's basically telling me and others who don't agree with him to read all kinds of links, the faq of the apt4rpm site, and pages linked through that.

 

I went there and read all that. And wasted my time in doing so.

 

Then I concluded that he was wrong, so I returned the suggestion in kind.

 

To all useful apt commands there is some equivalent in apt-less systems.

 

And my question to linux_learner and all others is: if you disagree, please tell me which command or feature urpmi (and consorts) is missing.

 

I'm not attacking anyone in person here (and I don't think linux_learner took it that way, I just asked in a less practical way what adamw said more clearly and concisely:

linux_learner: to cut all this short, could you please just post a short sample of things you regularly do with apt that you could not do with urpmi?

 

Please don't point to manpages, if you're so sure that apt4rpm or apt sport important features that urpmi doesn't offer, and these make apt(4rpm) more powerful, as you wrote with high certainty:

apt has alot more options than urpmi. apt is a more powerfull tool.
so it should be so much work to indicate these more powerful options?

If you can't indicate what you think are the more powerful options of apt, then I call you on it that you are just repeating hearsay.

 

That's all - nothing personal, but as has been said before, lots of people are still down the old alley that apt is superior, as things once where. I don't take issue with you, but I do with those statements.

If you state that, than please back it up with an example, or mention that you are just repeating something from a knowledgeable source. In either case, there will be something that we can try to refute and if we can't, then the statement stands.

For now, there is just an empty statement without any precise backing.

 

My statement: in no relevant way is urpmi (and related tools) missing anything essential, compared to apt/apt4rpm. Your turn to give an example of what cannot be done with urpmi that apt can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now thats a fair rebuttal aRTee.

 

i actually use apt4rpm just like urpmi. i am aware of apt's potential, but have never had the opportunity to put it to use.

 

its like having a ferrari on a highway in the US with a cop on your tail.

 

if ya know me at all (which ya dont, obviously), i am not against urpmi. when i first switched over to suse, i missed urpmi.

 

since i am aware of the possibilities of apt, and knowledgable of urpmi, apt has more options. do i use them? hehehe. no.

 

i did use all of urpmi. that in and of itself says something.

 

i dont post all the options and such as it would be a really long post. in this case a link is better. you can see for yourself what apt (from the apt man pages) can do and compare it for yourself.

 

i say it is superior as it can do things urpmi cannot. have i used them? not yet. will i? only if i want to play arround. i say apt is superior cause i learned urpmi in a very short time, and utilized all its features. apt, i'm still learning.

 

there are 2 distros i know really well, mdk and suse. i pretty much started on mdk, then at 10.0 beta2 switched to suse 9.0. i started using mdk in 8.0. i used mdk every day all day till 10.0 beta2. it was all i did. it was what i knew. now all i use is suse. i use suse every day, all day, and have since suse 9.0.

 

i really do know urpmi, and apt. so because of my experience and knowledge of both systems and apps, i feel i can speak on this.

 

apt-get update = urpmi.update (if i remember my urpmi syntax right)

apt-get install <packagename> = urpmi <packagename>

apt-get remove <packagename> = urpme <packagename>

apt-get upgrade <packagename> = urpmi doesnt seem to have this

apt-get dist-upgrade = urpmi --auto-select

apt-get dselect-upgrade ? urpmi --auto-select (maybe?)

apt-get clean = ? urpmi doesnt seem to have this

apt-get autoclean (a variation of clean)

apt-get -f = ? urpmi doesnt seem to have a fix feature

 

really, go through and read the pages http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man8/apt-get.8.html just in a few lines i've shown how urpmi cant do all what apt does, and yes all these work on rpm distros. i've used all those features.

Edited by linux_learner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apt-get update = urpmi.update (if i remember my urpmi syntax right)

apt-get install <packagename> = urpmi <packagename>

apt-get remove <packagename> = urpme <packagename>

apt-get upgrade <packagename> = urpmi doesnt seem to have this

apt-get dist-upgrade  = urpmi --auto-select

apt-get dselect-upgrade ? urpmi --auto-select (maybe?)

what does dselect upgrade do?

apt-get clean = ? urpmi doesnt seem to have this

apt-get autoclean (a variation of clean)

urpmi doesnt cache packages like apt-get does. Its a difference in design, not a missing feature.

apt-get -f = ? urpmi doesnt seem to have a fix feature

What does it do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apt-get -f fixes broken packages. we all know some times durring installation a package will not install right (break). this does occur in urpmi. apt has a way to fix it.

 

dselect-upgrade is for example, the removal of old and the installation of new packages. dselect-upgrade seems to be like urpmi --auto-select but yet different. http://www.annodex.net/cgi-bin/man/man2html?8+dselect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you seem to be mistaken about urpmi caching.

 

--noclean

              do  not  remove  any  package  from  the  cache  in  directory

              /var/cache/urpmi/rpms.

http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/urpmi.php3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Finally something there to rebut.

 

apt-get upgrade <packagename> = urpmi doesnt seem to have this

Why not? If you use 'urpmi --upgrade', that's what you get.

Note: urpmi will normally get tthe latest package with a certain name, unless you specify the older name exactly.

 

 

apt-get clean = ? urpmi doesnt seem to have this
apt-get autoclean (a variation of clean)

Nope, true.

The normal behaviour is to clean up. If you want the mdk equivalent of this, howabout:

rm -f /var/cache/urpmi/rpms/*

 

apt-get -f = ? urpmi doesnt seem to have a fix feature

Like I stated, urpmi downloads in sets, and installs those. If there is an issue (broken mirror or whatever), the whole set won't get installed.

So urpmi doesn't need this, unless I misunderstood.

 

we all know some times durring installation a package will not install right (break). this does occur in urpmi.

Actually, no, I don't know this.

And if things don't install it's because either the mirrors are not updated, or the database of installable packages (hdlist) has to be updated. Or dependencies are not properly indicated in the rpm/hdlist... although then it does install but just not run (properly).

It's not so clear to me what the -f option does, and I wonder if it can really fix things.

 

So I still have the feeling that when you say: "apt is more powerful" and "has more options" you are just repeating things, but up to now you can't seem to repeat what exact options and features those are.

 

Let's get back to the initial idea of this thread/topic: Mandrakelinux getting apt or not - and the ensuing discussion: should Mdk move to apt instead of urpmi.

 

I have yet to see a compelling technical argument to do so.

 

And please don't point to the apt manpage or websites, you were quite firm in your statement, so I take that to imply that you know exactly what makes apt more powerful and option/feature rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the apt-get upgrade <packagename> is like rpm -Uvh as apposed to rpm -i <packagename>. the urpmi --upgrade upgrades all the packages, kinda like a distro upgrade. apt-get upgrade <packagename> just upgrades that package and any deps with it.

 

yeah i know urpmi will install the latest package, so will apt-get.

 

yes you misunderstand. yes any of us could do rm -rf /var/...... where ever the packages are located. but apt-get clean and autoclean is just easier.

 

right, aRTee. sure. you've only had broken mirrors. ok. sometimes it is the mirrors fault. sometimes its just a package. i've downloaded a whole set of packages and installed them via urpmi and apt, and seen one package, just one, get hosed on the install. what your talking about with the mirror would affect the whole set. what i am talking about is not. so urpmi can not compete here.

 

 

i cant say whether mdk should go to apt or not. i still think you misunderstand what i'm getting at. apt is a great tool, and great to have. the mdk developers could add certain features to urpmi to make it do things that apt does and that urpmi doesnt. i think its great to just have a choice. do i think apt is better? yep. would i force it on a distro? no. i would recomend apt as an alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the apt-get upgrade <packagename> is like rpm -Uvh as apposed to rpm -i <packagename>. the urpmi --upgrade upgrades all the packages, kinda like a distro upgrade. apt-get upgrade <packagename> just upgrades that package and any deps with it.

As *I* understand things, the default behavior of urpmi is like 'rpm -U' in that it updates only the necessary files in a package, those that are identical are untouched. The difference with rpm vs urpmi is urpmi also takes care of resolving any resulting dependencies. This is also the default behavior of apt. 'apt-get upgrade' is just like 'urpmi --upgrade'.

 

As for 'apt-get -f', it didn't seem to be particularly useful. I don't have a Debian install now, but if I remember right it just tries to reinstall the package and if that fails, then uninstall/reinstall again. Nothing really trick, no magic 'fix'.

 

the mdk developers could add certain features to urpmi to make it do things that apt does and that urpmi doesnt.

Like aRTee, I still don't see what that really might be...

 

apt is a great tool...its great to just have a choice. do i think apt is better? yep. would i force it on a distro? no. i would recomend apt as an alternative.

Fair enough, no doubt apt is good and choice is a Good Thing. But, no offense, but how is a guy who admitted he's never installed Debian gotten to be such a sage about apt? So convinced of it's "superiority"?

 

This whole apt vs urpmi arguement is really a little silly, but this stuff gets out on the web and people read it. And so the perception, the myth that "apt is better than anything" is perpetrated, no matter how good urpmi, portage, yum or anything else really is. So sometimes these spats are needed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still confused here, linux_learner, in that you state with certainty that:

apt has alot more options than urpmi. apt is a more powerfull tool.

 

As for the number of options, I don't think that is relevant - it's all about essential and important options. And as for those, I don't think apt has any that urpmi (etc - I don't want to type urpmf/q/e etc the whole time, you get my drift) lacks.

 

Anyway, as for number of options, if you want to go down that alley, I can count the number of options of apt and the number of options for urpmi(etc) and I'm sure the result will favour one or the other, but not in a meaningful way.

 

If you state with certainty that apt is more powerful, I call you on it, and so far you have just shown that you don't really know in what sense.

 

So all I can see is that you are repeating the words of those have intimate knowledge of apt, but don't know urpmi and therefore assume certain things.

If you're so certain urpmi(etc) lacks options and so is less powerful, please tell us why.

 

 

As for the points you make:

the apt-get upgrade <packagename> is like rpm -Uvh as apposed to rpm -i <packagename>. the urpmi --upgrade upgrades all the packages, kinda like a distro upgrade. apt-get upgrade <packagename> just upgrades that package and any deps with it.

I gotta admit, I don't know what rpmdrake does when you use it to upgrade, in the gui you can select what package you want to upgrade and it does just that, including dependencies - I don't use the cli for that, since I like to read the description etc, the gui is more convenient for that kind of browsing. Anyway, I think it's just a matter of:

urpmi --update [packagename]

to do it.

So, there is no difference in functionality. Which you could easily have found in the FAQ.

 

 

Next point:

yes you misunderstand. yes any of us could do rm -rf /var/...... where ever the packages are located. but apt-get clean and autoclean is just easier.

Howabout:

--clean
Remove all packages from the cache in directory /var/cache/urpmi/rpms.

Straight from the FAQ, which I missed before when I hinted to use rm -f /var/cache/urpmi/rpms...

 

So, again, no advantage to apt as opposed to urpmi.

 

you've only had broken mirrors. ok. sometimes it is the mirrors fault. sometimes its just a package. i've downloaded a whole set of packages and installed them via urpmi and apt, and seen one package, just one, get hosed on the install. what your talking about with the mirror would affect the whole set. what i am talking about is not. so urpmi can not compete here.

 

I don't see what you mean, I'm serious, not trying to wipe your argument from the table. What scenario are you hinting at?

Why did the package get hosed on the installation, and what was the result? And in what way would apt be able to recover cleanly from that problem?

It seems to me that if a package is broken (badly built, no proper dependency info inside, not offering the files it should or whatever) there's nothing that apt or urpmi can do.

Please explain. You may well have a point here (in fact, it would be the only one you have, as far as I can see), and this may or may not be an important one.

 

 

Lastly: I'm not (we're not?) just discussing with linux_learner, I'm trying to debunk all the wrong thoughts about apt vs urpmi, and that they are really equivalent, different, but both tools serve the same purpose and serve it well.

In this case, it just happens to be linux_learner who's taking the stance of the apt favouring party - but don't hesitate to jump in if you have compelling arguments.

 

 

I have seen many times that people say there is no equivalent to apt, but when asked why it's superior to tools like urpmi, in the end, it always turns out there is nothing really much better about apt, and the proponents have just not known about some urpmi feature and assumed it didn't exist, or not know about how urpmi works and therefore assumed that it's lacking (as with the --noclean vs clean options, different defaults, that's all).

Sure, there may be some options that urpmi doesn't have, and the other way around. But on the whole, there is nothing essential or important missing from urpmi compared to apt, which is what your very first statement about options and 'more powerful' leads to believe.

 

 

The only big thing that I can see about apt is where bvc mentioned it's capable of installing from source. Well, on mdk that's just not in the cards for urpmi, you have to get the srpm and rebuild it.

But the whole idea of a packaging distro is that all desired packages are there for the user, no compiling involved. If not, it's better to move to portage/emerge straight away.

And as for our discussion, you, linux_learner, never mentioned that point, so I guess that's not what you meant when you stated that apt is more powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first, you wrongly assume that i am spouting off what i have heard. you have seen what i use apt for.

 

on the urpmi man page http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/urpmi.php3 i dont see --clean anywhere. when i read, and reread, and read the man page again, i thought perhaps urpmi automatically cleaned itself. but since i have no proof of this, i was not about to assert that. show me the proof for the --clean option.

 

occasionally i have done an install where either with yast, synaptic, apt-get, urpmi (doesnt matter which) and 1 package will not install correctly. what causes that? i dunno. its not the mirror. its not the developer.

 

yast doesnt detect it. rpmdrake doesnt detect it. urpmi doesnt detect it. apt-get does. not only detect it, but actually fixes it. notice i did not include synaptic in the list of what doesnt detect broken packages. why? because synaptic is the gui to apt-get.

 

does apt recover cleanly from that senario? yep. i've done it. i've seen where i have multiple packages that are broken, and apt fixes them. so yes.

 

 

aRTee pay attention here. i will quote my last post here

i cant say whether mdk should go to apt or not. i still think you misunderstand what i'm getting at. apt is a great tool, and great to have. the mdk developers could add certain features to urpmi to make it do things that apt does and that urpmi doesnt. i think its great to just have a choice. do i think apt is better? yep. would i force it on a distro? no. i would recomend apt as an alternative.

 

i said apt can do things urpmi cant. i have proven that. the rest is a matter of preference. this is one thing i like about linux. choice. thats what this is all about. yes apt can do things urpmi cant. does that mean mdk should stop urpmi. not in my book.

 

i never meantion source install, because i've never done it. i'm not sure if it means tar.gz/tar.bz2 or if it means srpm. either would be benificial. if it does both, that'd be freggin awesome. but since i've never tried it, i dont feel qualified to talk on it. make sence? good.

 

aRTee, i would recomend trying out apt yourself. read the howtos, the man pages, the info pages, the faq's and play with it. try it out and see what you think.

 

going over this point by point wont help except in the scholasyic and theoretical concept. you need to see this in practicality.

 

you've never tried apt, and only read arguements for/against it. you hadnt even read its features or documentation. yes i understand your quite happy with urpmi. great. i was to. i have no beef against urpmi. but for you to argue against something where you havent read up on it, and havent tried it out, thats just plain bad debate form. reading the faq's isnt enough. not even close. it barely gives an over view. dig deeper. try it. then make up your mind.

 

i'm not evangelizing apt. i'm not trying to sell it. its just another choice a user has. i'd have a real problem if every distro went to apt, or emerge or urpmi or what not. emerge maybe one of the best package managers out there, but i wouldnt want it to be the only one.

 

you follow me on this? cause so far it doesnt look like you are.

 

 

crashdamage

As *I* understand things, the default behavior of urpmi is like 'rpm -U' in that it updates only the necessary files in a package, those that are identical are untouched. The difference with rpm vs urpmi is urpmi also takes care of resolving any resulting dependencies. This is also the default behavior of apt. 'apt-get upgrade' is just like 'urpmi --upgrade'.

 

actually urpmi is like rpm -i. let say you have gaim-0.74 and you upgrade to gaim-1.1.4. you can download it and execute rpm -i gaim-1.1.4. the "i" in urpmi is install. aRTee's urpmi --update [packagename] would be closer.

 

As for 'apt-get -f', it didn't seem to be particularly useful. I don't have a Debian install now, but if I remember right it just tries to reinstall the package and if that fails, then uninstall/reinstall again. Nothing really trick, no magic 'fix'.

 

you kinda got it. that is how it finctions, but it does so with out affecting the other packages involved. you cant do that with urpmi.

 

i'm not talking about the debian apt, as it is not relavent to this subject, but apt4rpm, the port. debian uses a whole nother package concept, perhaps better, but thats not what we're debating here. we're talking about the apt package manager with rpms. we are still dealing with the rpm system. in that sence, since i do use apt regularly on suse, i am of reasonable authority to speak on this. for a debian system? hell no!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...