Re: Live Upgrade for Linux
From: Seth Arnold (sarnold@wirex.com)
Date: 04/02/03
- Previous message: Mat Price: "Red Hat: To patch or to upgrade?"
- In reply to: Daniel Wittenberg: "Re: Live Upgrade for Linux"
- Next in thread: Stephen Samuel: "Re: Live Upgrade for Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 18:02:29 -0800 From: Seth Arnold <sarnold@wirex.com> To: focus-linux@securityfocus.com
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 04:32:11PM -0600, Daniel Wittenberg wrote:
> But apt-get (or apt-rpm) works great with RPM. There are things I like
> about rpm and about apt, so with apt-rpm you get the best of both
> worlds.
Well, no, that's not entirely true.
apt's strength is handling package dependency trees. It is very good at
it. It is also very fast at it.
rpm's strength is making obvious which patches have been added by the
vendor. rpm also supports file-level dependencies.
The file-level dependencies are painful in apt-rpm. I've not used
Conectiva; maybe they removed file-level dependencies in their rpms,
maybe they worked around it, I'm not sure.
When I did use apt and rpm, the result was less than pleasing; apt would
calculate the proper order to apply updated rpms, and then would hand
the work off to rpm, which would duplicate much of the work. apt and
dpkg is quick. rpm is slow. apt and rpm is very slow.
I haven't had a chance to try out up2date yet, but I'm expecting it
meshes with rpm better. It has to. :)
What is truly frustrating is to see two package formats, both with
problems that the other package format has solved.
-- Join the fight against terrorism by giving up your liberties today!
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Previous message: Mat Price: "Red Hat: To patch or to upgrade?"
- In reply to: Daniel Wittenberg: "Re: Live Upgrade for Linux"
- Next in thread: Stephen Samuel: "Re: Live Upgrade for Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
