[Mageia-discuss] Package management system

Wed Sep 29 03:46:34 CEST 2010

Doesn't packagekit provide Gnome and KDE-native interfaces for package
+management?
+
+Shawn
+
+On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Richard <richard.j.walker at ntlworld.com>wrote:
+
+> On Tuesday 28 September 2010 23:42:21 Renaud MICHEL wrote:
+> > No, if you are talking about rpmdrake, you should compare it to synaptic.
+> > I you want to talk about apt (be it apt-get or aptitude), you should
+> > compare it to urpmi, and urpmi (in my opinion) is not slow.
+> >
+> Agreed. Though I am not by any means a command line junkie I will always
+> use
+> uprmi when I know exactly what I want.
+>
+> So it is synaptic/apt and rpmdrake/urpmi. No doubt yum has a GUI
+> counterpart
+> too.
+> >
+> > emerge and macports are source-based "packet" managers.
+> > As the programs are compiled when you want to install them, you can
+> decide
+> > to exclude some optional, compile-time functionality, and avoid their
+> > dependencies.
+> >
+> > In pre-compiled packets (like rpm or deb), the packager decided what
+> should
+> > be compiled, and so what are the required dependencies.
+> > You still have the option to get the source package and tweak it (via the
+> > spec file for rpm, or rule for deb) to exclude some things you don't
+> > require. (but you will need to do it again each time an update is
+> > available)
+> >
+> Right, I have done this with a custom ffmpeg build. Compile time dependency
+> control is, of course, a grace and favour benefit provided by the program
+> author. I get the impression that a packager can introduce depencies when
+> special support is needed for extra features he may choose to include. This
+> seems to be what happened with the 2010.1 issue of the foobillard rpm where
+> a
+> new dependency on Pulse has been created which does not exist in the 2010.0
+> package or the author's source.
+> >
+> > Packages have dependencies, those are interpreted as "this package cannot
+> > work without those".
+> > You can also have less strict recommendations, deb has provided for long
+> > recommended packages (not really required, but a must have) and suggested
+> > packages (is an interesting addition, but nothing essential).
+> > Rpm also provide such a mechanism (though I think is younger than deb)
+> with
+> > the suggested packages.
+> > Urpmi take the suggested packages into account, when installing it will
+> by
+> > default selected also the suggested packages, but you can add the --no-
+> > suggests option to avoid this.
+> Does this mean that I can find the KDE packages which "depend" on Pulse and
+> re-package them such that Pulse is only "recommended"? If so then I will
+> have
+> to find the way to set the --no-suggests option in rpmdrake. I hadn't even
+> looked for it before as I have only recently started to discover problems
+> in
+> Mandriva packages.
+> > On the urpme side, if you uninstall a package that was installed as a
+> > suggestion, it won't trigger the uninstallation of the package that
+> > suggested it.
+> Something similar seems to apply to packages which I inadvertently "mark"
+> as
+> manually installed. urpme reports that such packages will be excluded from
+> orphan detection. I love the --auto-orphans switch.
+>
+> Richard
+>
+>
+-------------- next part --------------
+An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
+URL: </pipermail/mageia-discuss/attachments/20100928/1234722a/attachment.html>
+