Jump to content
yr2alex

APT for MDK?

Recommended Posts

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?

a fair question. simple. after the install with yast, urpmi, what not, apt detected it as broken, i then had apt fix it.

 

Wow, you actually ported urpmi to SUSE, or yast to Mandrakelinux?

Great work!

:D

 

Sorry for bringing this up, but consistency is killing me. Or rather, the lack thereof.

 

Anyway, you did the install with urpmi (yast, whatnot) and then apt detected it as broken and you used the now nigh infamous -f option to fix things?

I think urpmi is buggy, it shouldn't have installed. You filed the bugreport?

Or the package was buggy, but then, how could apt have fixed it? It wouldn't possibly get more info from the rpm?

 

 

i have had this happen a number of times with urpmi (thats how i ended up hosing mdk numerous times) and some in suse. just that i catch them in suse. i know of alot of others who have had this, so you and Gowator are the exception.

 

Well, since it happened to you, and not to Gowator and me, we are the exception?

And if you read up on the forum here, you don't see all that many people with those urpmi issues, so I don't think there's a solid ground for the claim that Gowator and me are the exception here either. Note that I'm not saying there are no such issues, just that they are not the rule.

 

 

from what i've read on gurus rpm site, it pertains to source rpms, and apt auto rebuilds them. so at least 1 less step.

You know what, from this I gather that you didn't use it. All those other 'more powerful making options' that mdk with urpmi lacks, you also didn't use, except the -f option.

So they are not in any way essential, or you would have had to use them. Nor are they, by the same logic, important.

 

lol. nahhh. i just like playing with package managers. if i could get emerge on suse, i would.

After getting urpmi there, emerge shouldn't be that hard, should it?

:D

 

 

it sounds like urpmi really is comparable

Ah, it's getting light in here.

You know, you could have gotten that from the very quote you yourself posted...

 

 

 

I apologise for my sarcasm - think of it as therapy... :P

 

 

Anyway:

I thought "cooker" and "10.1" worked as "stable" and "unstable" in Debian.

It does i believe, <snip>

Well, I'd say that cooker is unstable, (10.1) Official Edition is between testing and unstable, Community as well, but closer to testing, and Corporate Desktop is more like stable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thou dost assume to much. i never said i got urpmi on suse. although it does come in source code, and could be installed. i have used urpmi. where? gee, lets refresh your memory. umm, which distro uses urpmi? mdk? you got it. great job. i knew you could do it. now for the bonus round. which distro uses yast? suse? wow. your on a roll. great job.

 

we already know i have used both. we also know i use/d apt. so whats so hard about grasping the concept here?

 

yes i use the -f option. yes it works.

 

as someone else said, and as the manpage says, often times its a dependancy issue. equivalent to forcing an rpm install. sometimes its maybe just maybe the rpm didnt install right. when this is the case, it is because something wasnt installed properly by either the rpm command or yast (for suse) or urpmi (for mdk).

 

take for example the limewire instace i sited before. apt detected it as broken. i had installed that from the command line. rpm -Uvh <packagename>. the rpm installed fine according to the output from the rpm command. i know its not the package, as it works fine. its not the mirror, since again, the package works fine.

 

now i have installed other packages via rpm -Uvh and their fine. so its not the rpm command. so no bugs with rpm. i already had java on the system, so that wasnt the problem.

 

so then its a problem with apt right? hmm. see if you find any bug reports on this. nope. didnt think so. so its not apt.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=a...rts&btnG=Search

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
take for example the limewire instace i sited before. apt detected it as broken. i had installed that from the command line. rpm -Uvh <packagename>. the rpm installed fine according to the output from the rpm command. i know its not the package, as it works fine. its not the mirror, since again, the package works fine.

 

now i have installed other packages via rpm -Uvh and their fine. so its not the rpm command. so no bugs with rpm. i already had java on the system, so that wasnt the problem.

 

So you mess up your system by using rpm -Uvh which cannot do dependency resolution (you messed up, not the system), and apt helped clean up the mess.

 

Very good.

 

But with proper use (urpmi, yast, etc) you would never have ended up with the problem in the first place.

 

I understand - you're saying that apt can fix a system that has been maltreated - I guess that with urpmi one would have to deinstall that package, then urpmi it to get all dependencies installed/upgraded, and all would be fine too.

Advantage to apt for those who mistreat their system.

 

Though, this does contrast strongly with what you said before about there having been no issues with the package, mirror, developer, etc and not knowing where the problem was....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
although it does come in source code, and could be installed.

That is the point t wouldn't work because it is not designed to work in suse ...or any other distro..just like YAST comes with source but it would be easier top write a distro than port YAST to an existing one... since everything would have to be in the right/wrong place and files configured as YAST expects...

Same goes for URPMI... it uses hdlist and synthesis files from MDK repositories...

 

yes i use the -f option. yes it works.

 

 

now i have installed other packages via rpm -Uvh and their fine. so its not the rpm command. so no bugs with rpm. i already had java on the system, so that wasnt the problem.

Except if you force packages you can expect them to be broken...

If you use URPMI and have NEVER EVER EVER EVER force a package and only use Mandrake sources and plf chance is nothing will break... and like aRTee says urpme then urpmi will fix it... and no -f option is ever needed.

 

Once you start using apt4get on mandrake and/or rpm --force etc then you are breaking the system...

 

perhaps under this circumstance the -f option is a good idea? but i prefer to only use urpmi on mandrake systems and not have this problem... same goes for installing from source ....

 

Im the same in debian..unless there is a deb package i don't uinstall it. Beleive me im perfectly capable of installing from source but I don't unless I package something myself... so it is handled properly....

 

This is why I am questioning the whole wisdom of using apt4rpm on mandrake?

urpmi works perfectly when used alone but if you start using apt4rpm you can expect to need the -f option... which often doesn't work....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once you start using apt4get on mandrake and/or rpm --force etc then you are breaking the system...

 

that would be an incorrect assumption. using apt on mdk does not break the system. naturally you'd want to use only mdk sources. thats a given.

 

the whole question of apt on mdk is just an option. i dont find that urpmi works perfectly.

 

now then. i'm sure i will get someone trying to argue with that. trying to geuss what i might have done wrong. bottom line, i used mdk sources and plf and i dont force anything, so i did nothing wrong. i'd rather not install something if i have to force it.

 

in my observation and experience, apt works better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in my observation and experience, apt works better.

Yep, its never failed me yet!

Possibly.... but how long have you been using it?

Do you also use URPMI or only apt?

 

When did urpmi fail you?

I know when it failed me and that was usually when mirrors were being updated... but I don't see how apt would handle this better.

 

im open to suggestions.... I use apt daily... in Debian... I like it but

that would be an incorrect assumption. using apt on mdk does not break the system. naturally you'd want to use only mdk sources. thats a given.

 

the whole question of apt on mdk is just an option. i dont find that urpmi works perfectly.

my worry here is how the two co-exist....

 

Personally I would prefer that Mandrake used deb's... and apt but I just don't see what's better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anon
Possibly.... but how long have you been using it? 

About a year on MDK, although thacs version only recently. (plug )

Do you also use URPMI or only apt? 

Mainly apt but occasionally urpmi

When did urpmi fail you? 

mirrors are obviously not urpmi fault, but i have had it locking up for no reason, telling me an app is installed when i know it isn't, telling me i don't have x app installed when i know i do, telling me there is a dependency problem when i know there isn't. etc etc. Of course those errors have occurred over a few years, and i have omitted some errors caused by my own mistakes.

So I would say that for me, apt is more stable than urpmi, and thats the most important difference.

But as i said earlier in this thread, its about personal choice and experience. Your mileage may vary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be perfectly possible to use apt4rpm on Mandrakelinux, heck, it's in contrib - the irony: you can urpmi it! :P

 

In the same vein, since urpmi and related tools are just a bunch of perl scripts, I don't think it's really hard to port to SUSE - you just need the directory structure.

As for repositories, the urpmi tools can create the (synthesis) hdlists - see the manpages.

On a side note, urpmi has been ported to RH/FC.

 

 

For linux_learner, the apt -f option is essential, since he installed with rpm -U, instead of using urpmi, and only apt -f can fix that in one single command. Note that I agree that in that case it's powerful.

 

It's just a case that should not occur with proper and consistent use.

 

Which is my point: it is not in any way essential or important to urpmi users - they will never have a need for it. So for most people, apt is not more powerful than urpmi and has no features they need that urpmi doesn't provide.

For people who mess up their system, apt -f can be the easiest way to fix the system they broke. Note that it's very well possible to install a whole load of rpms with rpm -U and have lots of things not working, whilst not knowing what package(s) are at the root of the problem. If apt -f does what I now think it does (as per all info that I've seen/read and that's been mentioned about it), this indeed is much better than urpme followed by urpmi - because in the latter case, you have to know what exact package(s) is/are the problem.

So for people who mess up their system and break it, apt with the infamous -f option is the way to go.

 

 

It's a bit like taking a snorkel when you're going swimming up shit creek, really good to have if you're the type to get yourself into that type of trouble (the really immersed into sh!t-type). Others just don't go swimming there so they eye the snorkel weirdly: "hey, why the snorkel?"

Naturally, the snorkeler will say it's really powerful and will come in damn handy! And from where he's standing, he's perfectly right. :D

 

 

the whole question of apt on mdk is just an option. i dont find that urpmi works perfectly.

Well, you're the one mixing urpmi with rpm commands. Lesson to learn: never install with rpm if you're on a urpmi system.

 

 

Lastly: I have seen issues when installing and then running apps - in those cases it always turned out to be a package with incorrect dependency info - for instance, on Mdk10.1OE, pathological doesn't (didn't) have py_game as a dependency listed, so it didn't work. I sent an email to the packager, I hope this will be solved in newer versions.

Edited by aRTee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When did urpmi fail you? 

mirrors are obviously not urpmi fault, but i have had it locking up for no reason, telling me an app is installed when i know it isn't, telling me i don't have x app installed when i know i do, telling me there is a dependency problem when i know there isn't. etc etc. Of course those errors have occurred over a few years, and i have omitted some errors caused by my own mistakes.

So I would say that for me, apt is more stable than urpmi, and thats the most important difference.

But as i said earlier in this thread, its about personal choice and experience. Your mileage may vary.

I think its possible you are looking at this the same way as linux learner...

..that is remembering the problems with URMPI from a long time ago and comparing them with a really recent apt4rpm?

 

The mirrors (after a hickup or two) seem to have got more reliable and the hdlists and deps sorted out better.... so URPMI today is not the URPMI from 3 yrs ago..

 

I honestly haven't tried apt4rpm... my main distro is debian so I use apt every day... (cron'd apt-get update at least) ... its great.... but I like Debian all round... from a choice POV... apt has some truly awesome capabilities when combined with dpkg and its tools... but non of them seem good for noobies.

 

Like i said on the 'MDK as server thread'... Im no big fan of MDK as a server ... to me its a great noobie distro... and to me URPMI performs within those bounds.... but if people want a more configurable/powerful/personalisable distro then they are probably starting in the wrong place with Mandrake. (I wouldn't start out to Dublin from here) ..i.e choose the tool set and choices as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anon
I think its possible you are looking at this the same way as linux learner...

..that is remembering the problems with URMPI from a long time ago and comparing them with a really recent apt4rpm? 

Not at all, i know urpmi has improved over the years and i take that into account when giving an opinion on it. My last problem with urpmi was in fact only a couple of months ago, i couldn't add a source in a consol, i would type urpmi-addmedia bla bla and it would just return to localhost. No entry had been added. Interesting thing though ( shock horror amazement ) it would add it OK in the app i hate to use or rely on..........the gui wizard :o :D

I am not being anti urpmi here, mostly it has/does work fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i would type urpmi-addmedia bla bla and it would just return to localhost..

 

Don't blame urpmi: the correct command is urpmi.addmedia :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anon
i would type urpmi-addmedia bla bla and it would just return to localhost..

 

Don't blame urpmi: the correct command is urpmi.addmedia :P

Oh i see, i thought maybe typing bla_bla was the problem. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ur boath rong..itz

urpmi_admeedia-bla_bla root :cheeky:

 

noe you know whay urpmi has never faled me :cheesy:

Edited by bvc

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...