Jump to content
yr2alex

APT for MDK?

Recommended Posts

Well, I'm getting a bit tired of this walk around the bushes and trees.

 

Check the recent urpmi manpage - the one you point to is dated 2002, the recent one I have on my 10.1 OE has many more contributors at the end:

CONTRIBUTORS

 

Please mail to authors if you are not belonging to this alphabetically sorted list after having contributed.

 

Andrej Borsenkow, Guillaume Cottenceau, Philippe Libat, Bryan Paxton, Guillaume Rousse, Michael Scherer, Alexander Skwar, Olivier Thauvin, Erwan Velu, Florent Villard.

 

Just put #urpmi in your konqueror location field and you'll see.

So, please read the manpage, you'll find the --clean option, that is normally not necessary because by default urpmi cleans up.

 

We can surely blame Mandrakesoft for having an old manpage on the web, but knowing Mandrakesoft this should hardly surprise us, should it?

I mean, the supported hardware database isn't all that up to date either.

 

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.

 

Well you have me there. I wouldn't know in what cases apt can recover, and why other tools can't just do their job. Bit unknown, and frankly, not a very strong argument, as it is stated in the apt manpage:

-f

--fix-broken

Fix; attempt to correct a system with broken dependencies in place. This option, when used with install/remove, can omit any packages to permit APT to deduce a likely solution. Any Package that are specified must completely correct the problem. The option is sometimes necessary when running APT for the first time; APT itself does not allow broken package dependencies to exist on a system. It is possible that a system's dependency structure can be so corrupt as to require manual intervention (which usually means using dselect(8) or dpkg --remove to eliminate some of the offending packages). Use of this option together with -m may produce an error in some situations. Configuration Item: APT::Get::Fix-Broken.

I doubt seriously that in the cases where urpmi could not manage, apt can manage. If you read this info on the -f switch, it hardly seems to be that way.

I think you're comparing situations of yum, yast and urpmi that were due to too broken systems/packages to situations that were not too broken for apt.

 

In any case, it seems clear to me that this feature/option should normally never be necessary, if the repository files/packages are set up properly. In that sense, the fact as stated in the quoted part of the manpage that sometimes this is necessary for apt when running it for the first time is hardly a positive point.

 

So in my book, not necessarily a plus for apt.

 

With a good repository, it should not be necessary, and as stated in the quote, one may have to resort to other commands like dselect and dpkg.

With urpmi, there's also --allow-nodeps, --allow-force and such.

 

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.

 

No, you stated as a matter of fact that apt is more powerful and has more options, in a way that implied that you knew exactly what those more powerful features are, and as if that will make a whole big difference.

 

I agree that there may be some things that apt can do that urpmi can't, but this is also true vice versa (you have not yet commented on that - but in a like vein I could say that the point of Buchan Milne, which I conveniently can't find on slashdot, makes urpmi 'more powerful').

So there I don't see why apt should be considered more powerful.

 

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.

 

Can you tell me why I should do that?

I believe it's the equivalent of urpmi. Which works fine for me, so I see no point in finding out for myself. I can tell from what I've seen on friends' machines and from the manpage that it's a great tool.

 

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

No, you need to back up your statement about apt being more powerful with some good evidence.

 

I never made any statement that I haven't backed up. You did.

 

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.

 

Sorry, this is not the right form of debate. I don't have to jump from a plane without a parachute to realise that would not be a healty idea.

I do think I have been very true to proper debate form, and I feel you haven't.

 

You have started out by making a claim about which you later stated you don't know all that much, then still insist it is correct, without having anything serious to back it up.

It's taken you lots of replies to finally figure out some minor point, which actually should never happen, and I have never seen it happen on urpmi.

Not very strong.

 

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

Well, maybe I'm too thick, all I ask is that you put some beef to your remark, and I have rebutted practically all of your points, some of which weren't so strong to begin with, and in doing so I have shown that you don't know urpmi all that well.

 

Then you quote a 2002 urpmi page, sorry, it's 2005 and the thing was potentially not even up to date at that time - documentation gets written after the code.

 

 

So again, there's nothing essential or important that apt does that urpmi can't do, and there are some differences between the two, none that make one tool more powerful than the other.

 

I didn't make that up, and I don't have to read any manpages, you're the one who claimed that apt is more powerful, I'm just saying (as are some others) that it isn't. It's up to you to substanciate your claims, not up to me to find out if they are true or not - I never claimed anything about apt.

 

It just annoys me to see that statement get repeated over and over again, without any practical proof. It's belittling to the Mandrake urpmi developers. Honor where honor is due.

Note: I have not ever seen any claim to fame from apt proponents against urpmi held up after more close inspection. This discussion included.

Edited by aRTee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you bvc.

 

Just put #urpmi in your konqueror location field and you'll see.
no i wont. i dont have mdk.

 

I doubt seriously that in the cases where urpmi could not manage, apt can manage
of course you doubt. you havent tried it. i have. i do know. i have seen it.

 

No, you stated as a matter of fact that apt is more powerful and has more options
more options is more powerfull, at least in my book. apt can do things urpmi can not.

 

I agree that there may be some things that apt can do that urpmi can't
ok. thats my point, and by that consession, i win. that was my point. the rest has been a misunderstanding.

 

but this is also true vice versa
i have never seen urpmi do something apt cant. i used to use urpmi everyday.

 

Can you tell me why I should do that?

I believe it's the equivalent of urpmi. Which works fine for me, so I see no point in finding out for myself. I can tell from what I've seen on friends' machines and from the manpage that it's a great tool.

 

how will you know until you try it. your running on theory. i've used both. i'm talking from experience. yet you argue with me. try it. it is a great tool. maybe you'll like it. maybe you wont. but at least you will have tried it. then you will know from experience, instead of scholastically and in theory.

 

No, you need to back up your statement about apt being more powerful with some good evidence.
nope. theres nothing i can say that will make you listen. you have read the man pages and faq's. the man pages are the best proof, except experience itself. so i have backed it up, you refuse to accept it and ackowledge it.

 

i have even told you that i have used the -f feature and that it works. you still dont get it.

 

I never made any statement that I haven't backed up. You did.
wrong. i have backed it up. you refuse to accept it. there is a difference. i have sited web sites and my experiences. you just wont listen.

 

 

i never intended this to be a debate. merely a recomendation. you twisted what was said into your own personal campaing. my first post in this thread was merely a link to the mdk apt4rpm. so your wrong again.

 

when the debate ensued, i posted links to sites where the info could be found. i dont feel its nesissary for me to quote sites. you obviously think i do. i thought the web sites addressed all the issues, nothing more needed to be said. yet you responded with rtfm. if you had taken your own advise, we would not be having this debate. period.

 

Then you quote a 2002 urpmi page, sorry, it's 2005 and the thing was potentially not even up to date at that time - documentation gets written after the code.
you havent paid attention. how many times have i said i dont run mdk anymore? so the only documentation i have is where? thats right. the mdk site.

 

It's up to you to substanciate your claims, not up to me to find out if they are true or not - I never claimed anything about apt.
on the contrary, you refuted the claim, which is to discredit.

 

why do you think i have repeatedly said its about choice and preference? a point you repeatedly ignore.

 

remember, you said that apt can do more things than urpmi. you agreed there. thats more power. to say something can do something that another tool can not, is to rate that tool (when its for the same purpose/function) superior. ultimately, is it noticably better? hmm, i guess that personal preference. which i have said all the way through this debate. you just ignore it, that all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is less important because (IMHO) Mandrake is not a server distro... 

 

 

 

hi gowator, hope you dont mind me asking these, I'm just a little bit curious about what you have said,.... why?

Is it not advisable to use Mandrake as a server ?

edit: I'm sorry.....If this leads to another topic, I'll just ask this as a new

Edited by aioshin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
of course you doubt. you havent tried it. i have. i do know. i have seen it.

 

 

I used both, for extensive periods of time.And there wasnt a single situation where urpmi couldnt manage, but apt could.

 

 

No, you stated as a matter of fact that apt is more powerful and has more options

 

more options is more powerfull, at least in my book. apt can do things urpmi can not.

 

I agree that there may be some things that apt can do that urpmi can't

 

ok. thats my point, and by that consession, i win. that was my point. the rest has been a misunderstanding.

 

no... im pretty sure you have been arguing that apt is a more powerful tool that can do more.

 

Besides more options doesnt equal more powerful, more powerful equals how well it handles its existing options. I could make a package manager with crude dependency checking, and one more feature than a package manager with awesome dependency checking, does that make my crude one more powerful?

 

but this is also true vice versa

i have never seen urpmi do something apt cant. i used to use urpmi everyday.

 

 

Apt doesnt allow broken dependencies, hence, it doesnt allow --no-deps.

 

I never saw the --parallel and --root options. But dont quote me on that, I never had a need for the two latter options.

 

Can you tell me why I should do that?

I believe it's the equivalent of urpmi. Which works fine for me, so I see no point in finding out for myself. I can tell from what I've seen on friends' machines and from the manpage that it's a great tool.

 

how will you know until you try it. your running on theory. i've used both. i'm talking from experience. yet you argue with me. try it. it is a great tool. maybe you'll like it. maybe you wont. but at least you will have tried it. then you will know from experience, instead of scholastically and in theory.

 

artee is right here, they are equivalents. You say you speak from experience, but you havnt used urpmi in recent times, so your usage/knowledge is essentially out of date.

 

 

post 2 is further down... limited number of quotes in one post only :/

Edited by iphitus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[comic relief mode on]

 

linux_learner,

are you in any way affiliated with or related to Daryl McBride or SCO?

I find similarities in your way of claiming things and how you then back those claims.

 

And I'm think I know how the IBM lawyers must be feeling....

 

I'm happy iph and others are filling in for me.

 

If ever it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that apt is the more powerful tool, I'll read about it in the paper. Potentially next to the headline "SCO won, IBM to pay billions in damages"....

 

[comic relief mode off - sorry, couldn't resist]

 

Edit: iph, there's a limited number of quote tags allowed, which is why it doesn't work in your post..

Edited by aRTee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

argh, im still editing my post..... these quote tags are hating me and I cant work out why.... they're all closed and NONE of them are rendering as quotes!!!

Edited by iphitus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you need to back up your statement about apt being more powerful with some good evidence.

nope. theres nothing i can say that will make you listen. you have read the man pages and faq's. the man pages are the best proof, except experience itself. so i have backed it up, you refuse to accept it and ackowledge it.

 

i have even told you that i have used the -f feature and that it works. you still dont get it.

 

 

while referring to this feature and its purpose, you said:

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

But the -f feature doesnt fix a single package that didnt install correctly.

 

artee copied the following from the apt manual:

-f

--fix-broken

Fix; attempt to correct a system with broken dependencies in place. <snip>

 

This option attempts to fix broken dependencies, not packages that didnt install correctly. You claim to use this feature for something it doesnt do. I don't believe you. I dont think you have ever used this -f feature.

 

 

 

I never made any statement that I haven't backed up. You did.

wrong. i have backed it up. you refuse to accept it. there is a difference. i have sited web sites and my experiences. you just wont listen.

 

snip snip snip

Im not even going to debate this, its aside of the real debate.

 

iphitus

Edited by iphitus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put less quotes in your post, they will render - I can put my 7:51 post content here and you can spread your content over your 7.42 and 7:52 posts - that should do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok... what happened above was my quote tags wernt rendering, i didnt realise there was a limit to how many........

 

anyway its fixed now, i just had to spread my post.

 

thanks artee for tellin me that!

Edited by iphitus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do use the -f feature. saved me a lot of grief many times. maybe i explain it poorly, but i do use it. for example, i had installed limewire on my own (in rpm form). apt said it was broken. is limewire a dep? then i rest my case on that. by the way, i did already have j2re installed. so see, it wasnt a dep, it was a package. limewire is now fixed.

 

again. last time. all i was ever saying, more features equals more powerfull. i do realize your point iphitus. that more features isnt always better, but then that isnt the case with apt.

 

i wont disagree my experience is out of date with urpmi. i enjoyed it when i used it. perhaps its improved since i have been with suse.

 

i never said urpmi wasnt an equivalent. i just said i think apt is better because it has more features, so its more powerfull. follow me now?

 

actually, there is a way to allow broken dependencies, allow --no-deps.

apt-get -f install <packagename>

 

heres an example

# apt-get -s install acpi
warning: cannot get exclusive lock on /var/lib/rpm/Packages
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
skype_qt3_1: Depends: qt3 (>= 3.1) but it is not installable

 

 

this is just an example. now me personally. i'd never force an install. something i learned along time ago. i got that example off a usenet post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i do use the -f feature. saved me a lot of grief many times. maybe i explain it poorly, but i do use it. for example, i had installed limewire on my own (in rpm form). apt said it was broken. is limewire a dep? then i rest my case on that. by the way, i did already have j2re installed. so see, it wasnt a dep, it was a package. limewire is now fixed.

 

That's just the point.... I was making. If you install MDK RPM's with URPMI then you wouldn't have got into that situation....

 

i wont disagree my experience is out of date with urpmi. i enjoyed it when i used it. perhaps its improved since i have been with suse.

 

Perhaps it is you that has improved!

I think you are comparing your initial experiences with URPMI and linux with later experiences with Suse and apt4rpm.....

 

Now you are more experienced you read more from the man pages and understand it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[comic relief mode on once more]

 

For those who just tuned in, I'd like to summarise how the apt vs urpmi debate got fired up and is getting toned down - but not quite over yet...

 

 

1. statement about apt being more powerful and having more options; basically, the reader is confronted with the idea that it's actually silly to argue against this, urpmi should reasonably make way for apt. Grounds: some quotes related to apt vs rpm.

2. request for clarification, apt should be compared to urpmi, no?

3. hint to download teh intarweb and read it. Whole. Well, just some apt pages, faq's and such, but until one finds proof of statement 1 - if one hasn't found proof, one simply hasn't read enough

4. upon pressing for more exact clarification and proof about statement 1, since reading teh intarweb wholly didn't lead to clear proof or even clues, statement 1 gets repeated.

5. finally, some exact functions / options of apt get mentioned that urpmi supposedly lacks

6. simple demonstration that a urpmi / apt-less system does not lack the functionality of point 5

7. well, one option, -f to be exact, seems unclear in functionality, maybe something there, but it doesn't seem an important functionality

8. rebuttal with old urpmi manpage - no go, there's really not a big difference

9. statement that still apt has more options, and therefore we must agree it is more powerful than urpmi

10. rebuttal that more options doesn't equal more powerful

11. agreement on 10, but with remark that for apt, there's an exception - there it is valid that more options imply more powerfulness.

 

 

These points are exaggerated, but only slightly. The reader is invited to start at the beginning and read the whole thread through.

 

:P

 

[comic relief mode off]

 

Maybe I will be more seriously later, if time permits..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

urpmi doesn't have dependency verification options, AFAIK, because rpm does. I'm not running Linux ATM so I can't check, but rpm has functionality to verify that a package is correctly installed and also to test whether its dependencies are.

 

rpm -i does not work the way linux_learner suggested. rpm -i attempts to install the package you specify without upgrading any previous package. Take his example; if you have gaim-0.7.9 installed and you attempt to install a gaim-1.1.4 package with rpm -i, it will attempt to install the two packages alongside each other. This probably won't work, although there's no intrinsic reason why not, most packages just aren't built to allow this. rpm -U replaces the old package with the new one, which is what you actually want to do in almost all cases.

 

urpmi almost always does the same thing as rpm -U. It can, however, do the same thing as rpm -i. This, for instance, is what it does with kernel packages, which are written to be parallel-installable. Packages that are to be handled this way are listed in /etc/urpmi/inst.list .

 

As for something urpmi can do that apt can't, take a look at the bottom of the screenshot bvc posted above, about urpmi --parallel - parallel execution of urpmi across an unlimited number of machines. Sure makes updating packages on a large network simple. I don't think apt can do that, yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, more seriously. Yeah, that's aimed at the reader too, please read carefully! Or you might miss the point.

 

 

So, linux_learner has written the following (not in chronological order),

 

about apt vs urpmi:

i never said urpmi wasnt an equivalent. i just said i think apt is better because it has more features, so its more powerfull. follow me now?

 

...

 

 

(after quoting lots from the apt faq)

tell me urpmi can compete with that. it cant.

 

...

 

 

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

 

i was talking merely about apt and the power of apt compared to urpmi. http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/ see the faq's

 

...

 

 

there still is no comparison to apt. it just flat out beats urpmi.

 

...

 

 

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

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

 

...

 

 

i say its superior because it has alot more options than urpmi ever did/does.

 

...

 

 

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.

 

...

 

 

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 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.

 

...

 

 

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.

 

...

 

 

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!!

 

...

 

 

i have never seen urpmi do something apt cant. i used to use urpmi everyday.

 

...

 

 

theres nothing i can say that will make you listen. you have read the man pages and faq's. the man pages are the best proof, except experience itself. so i have backed it up, you refuse to accept it and ackowledge it.

 

i have even told you that i have used the -f feature and that it works. you still dont get it.

 

...

 

 

more options is more powerfull, at least in my book. apt can do things urpmi can not.

 

...

 

 

remember, you said that apt can do more things than urpmi. you agreed there. thats more power. to say something can do something that another tool can not, is to rate that tool (when its for the same purpose/function) superior. ultimately, is it noticably better? hmm, i guess that personal preference. which i have said all the way through this debate. you just ignore it, that all.

 

...

 

 

I agree that there may be some things that apt can do that urpmi can't

ok. thats my point, and by that consession, i win. that was my point. the rest has been a misunderstanding.

 

...

 

 

i have even told you that i have used the -f feature and that it works. you still dont get it.

 

...

 

 

on the contrary, you refuted the claim, which is to discredit.

 

...

 

 

i do use the -f feature. saved me a lot of grief many times. maybe i explain it poorly, but i do use it. for example, i had installed limewire on my own (in rpm form). apt said it was broken. is limewire a dep? then i rest my case on that. by the way, i did already have j2re installed. so see, it wasnt a dep, it was a package. limewire is now fixed.

 

again. last time. all i was ever saying, more features equals more powerfull. i do realize your point iphitus. that more features isnt always better, but then that isnt the case with apt.

 

...

 

 

i wont disagree my experience is out of date with urpmi.

 

...

 

 

i never said urpmi wasnt an equivalent. i just said i think apt is better because it has more features, so its more powerfull.

 

...

 

 

i'm not evangelizing apt. i'm not trying to sell it.

 

...

 

 

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.

 

...

 

 

Then you quote a 2002 urpmi page, sorry, it's 2005 and the thing was potentially not even up to date at that time - documentation gets written after the code.

you havent paid attention. how many times have i said i dont run mdk anymore?

(Well, up to that specific post, I don't think even once... you just mentioned you use SUSE, which doesn't exclude also using mdk; I know I have run both at the same time (time sharing), see for instance my suse review...)

 

 

about knowledge of and experience with urpmi and apt:

i have never successfully installed debian, then i cant compare. what i can compare is apt to urpmi. i have used urpmi, and i have used apt4rpm. aparently, yall missed what i was saying.

 

...

 

 

stop and think about this for a sec. how can i compare apt to rpm, when i am on an rpm system and always have been? so obviously i am talking about apt compared to urpmi.

 

...

 

 

since i am aware of the possibilities of apt, and knowledgable of urpmi, apt has more options.

 

...

 

 

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.

 

...

 

 

i do use apt regularly on suse, i am of reasonable authority to speak on this. for a debian system? hell no!!

 

...

 

 

how many times have i said i dont run mdk anymore?

 

...

 

 

i have never seen urpmi do something apt cant. i used to use urpmi everyday.

 

...

 

 

i wont disagree my experience is out of date with urpmi.

 

...

 

 

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.

 

 

 

more about more options being more powerful:

i say its superior because it has alot more options than urpmi ever did/does. thats my point. it handles rpms just like urpmi as far as the installation. but as far as the tool itself. a ton more options.

 

...

 

 

i think apt is better because it has more features, so its more powerfull.

 

...

 

 

i think that apt has more options. i've already illustrated that with the afore mentioned man pages and howtos and such.

 

...

 

 

more options is more powerfull, at least in my book. apt can do things urpmi can not.

 

...

 

 

again. last time. all i was ever saying, more features equals more powerfull.

 

.... whereas my position is, as I have mentioned, that 'powerful' implies: having more essential and important features, and I think others agree with me on this... shout out if you don't! ...

 

 

and about the one option that has been identified as an option that urpmi probably/possibly doesn't have, the -f option.

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.

No, "we all know" is at most all except me. This has never happened to me with consistent use of urpmi. I take it comments from Gowator imply that he too disagrees with the 'we all know' statement. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

 

 

Note also that the other option that apt has and urpmi lacks is not accepted by linux_learner as an argument in support of the superiority claim of apt, since he has no experience with it, and so it's not what he hinted at with his superiority claim:

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.

Naturally, on mdk you can install srpm's by using rpm --rebuild, so that wouldn't necessarily make a urpmi based system (mdk and derivatives) lacking in features, just different.

 

 

So that really leaves the -f option as the only one supporting the claim that apt is more powerful.

 

 

And we should now, based on these comments, all be convinced that apt / apt4rpm is more powerful than urpmi. Right. Not.

 

 

Well, I have some comments on the -f option.

 

Let's look at what it does according to what we (think we) know, and why urpmi's lack of it makes urpmi the inferior tool (or apt the superior, but one implies the other by definition).

 

First, we have the quote from the apt manpage, which tells us the -f option may be necessary the first time apt is used. Ok, no such need on urpmi. Furthermore:

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.

 

...

 

 

i do use the -f feature. saved me a lot of grief many times. maybe i explain it poorly, but i do use it. for example, i had installed limewire on my own (in rpm form). apt said it was broken. is limewire a dep? then i rest my case on that. by the way, i did already have j2re installed. so see, it wasnt a dep, it was a package. limewire is now fixed.

 

Ok, so you don't know what made the package not install properly with urpmi / yast, but you do know that it wasn't the mirror, not the developer, as as far as I can guess, you thereby imply it's not the package....

 

Well, I hope you filed a bugreport, because with all those things being ok, urpmi should have had no issue to install the requested rpm.

 

Next, how can you know that the cases where urpmi / yast couldn't manage to install a package are equal to the cases where apt first couldn't, but with the -f switch suddenly could?

There is no basis for that assumption. My guess about urpmi failing: if it wasn't the mirror or the developer or the package, and it wasn't a bug in urpmi, it was the user.

 

Note: I actually haven't seen a case where urpmi was used properly and consistently and still a package couldn't be installed. Could be me though, I only have and administrate 5 machines with mdk, 1 server, 1 laptop and the rest desktops. So what do I know.

 

 

 

remember, you said that apt can do more things than urpmi. you agreed there. thats more power.

No, I said that apt may have some options that urpmi may not have, and that urpmi likely has options that apt doesn't have. Not that in either case it would be so important as to proclaim one more powerful or superior than the other.

Which is my whole point... they differ, but none is really better than the other. I don't care for counting options, I just wanted to hear what functionality one has that the other doesn't. You're the one with the fixation on different options impying more powerful, not anyone else, not even apt4rpm people.

 

And actually, the faq of apt4rpm states as much, as already quoted by linux_learner:

Are there comparable applications available?

Yes, there are: urpmi from Mandrake. For a nice comparison of all the package mngt systems have a look at the section called "APT and RPM" in the article: "An RPM port of APT". Nice to mention here, is that there is something similar for solaris as well: pkg-get or pkg-utils supporting Solaris, HP-UX, Irix, Tru64, rpm and Aix.

 

This states clearly that the people behind apt4rpm consider it comparable. Not superior, not more powerful.

 

 

Please, either substanciate the claims of powerful features, or accept the statement that "apt / apt4rpm and urpmi are equivalent."

 

 

Rats, now adamw has come up with a feature that urpmi has and apt lacks. Should I now rewrite the above statement that urpmi is more powerful?

Well, no. Since to most users, this will hardly be an essential or important feature (remember, my criteria for labeling something 'more powerful'), I won't. Instead I'll rephrase it: "apt / apt4rpm and urpmi are equivalent, unless one is in a situation where --parallel is a useful option."

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...