On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:28:50 -0800 Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 08:46:10PM -0600, Jacob S. wrote: > > Apt-get by itself is years beyond what rpm was, when I played around > > with it. > > Well, that's comparing an apple to an orange, as well. apt-get would > be closest to the cheap knockoff, apt-rpm. rpm is closest to dpkg. True, but the keywords in my statement were "when I played around with it". apt-rpm wasn't available when I played with Redhat, Mandrake and SuSE (all of which use rpms), which is one of the reasons I switched to Debian. > That being said, RPM is inheirently flawed by file (as opposed to > package) dependencies and inconsistent package names and file > locations. See also: dependency hell. No disagreements there. Jacob ----- GnuPG Key: 1024D/16377135 Random .signature #43: Q: How many Microsoft Programmers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: It cannot be done. You will need to upgrade your house. Q: How many Linux users does it take to change a lightbulb? A: Two. One to write the HOWTO-LIGHTBULB-CRONJOB, and another to read it.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
