[Lvlug] rpm vs. apt-get vs. make
Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:59:47 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 email@example.com wrote:
> There was a recent article in /. whining about how
> troublesome rpms are. The article linked to a page
> about how great gentoo (where you compile everything)
> and debian (apt-get) are.
> I agree with some of the complaints -- I would never
> think of trying to use rpms to upgrade KDE until RedHat
> releases official rpms. Debian users don't need to
> download 1.8gigs of ISOs for a new distribution avery 9
> months either.
> Debian looks ridiculous in that the new "unstable"
> release woody still doesn't use a 2.4 kernel!
> Gentoo looks like too much work to install.
> What do others think?
> Is apt-get all that great?
> I suppose you could apt-get a real 2.4.18 kernel and
> KDE 3.x right?
Well, I can't really speak for Debian, but I use NetBSD quite often and it
also has a package system whereby you start you package installation
process and the computer fetches the source code and compiles it for
you/your poarticular machine/archetecture. Takes a litle longer to
install this way but I like the way it works. You can also just download
the binary package and run pkg_install on it which is quite fast - about
like installing an binary RPM package on RedHat.
In the Beginning there was nothing, which exploded - Yeah right...