🚀 go-pugleaf

Rajappa Iyer wrote:

> kaih=6mjhg$xmw-B@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > rsi@lucent.com (Rajappa Iyer)  wrote on 27.01.98 in <xnyg1m9n3kw.fsf@placebo.hr.lucent.com>:
> > > rpm and dpkg.
> > >
> > > Both could be implemented better and more portably with make and SVR4
> > > pkgadd/rm etc. See, for example, FreeBSD's ports mechanism.
> >
> > I wouldn't know about rpm, but you're wrong on several counts wrt dpkg.
> >
> > First of all, the only part relevant to make - the building packages part
> > - uses ... guess what? Make.
>
> Yeah, right! Do tell us how you build packages on debian. Here's my
> experience.
>
> % dpkg-buildpackage
>
> The first thing that happens when you do this is:
>
> debian/rules: cannot execute.
>
> Guess what debian/rules is: a makefile. Why not name it makefile? Why
> make it an executable? Product differentiation?
>
> % chmod +x debian/rules
> % dpkg-buildpackage
> ... configure, compile ...
> You must be root to do this.
>
> Gee, why doesn't dpkg-buildpackage check upfront if you've sufficient
> permissions to run the whole script?
>
> % su
>
> # dpkg-buildpackage
> ... clean, configure, compile, build ...
>
> For large packages, going through clean, configure build over again is
> unacceptable, IMHO.
>
> Sure, one could argue that these are inevitable glitches and minor
> bugs which would be present in any system... but the fact is that
> using debian's packaging mechanism was not a pleasant experience by
> any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, using FreeBSD's
> ports was trouble free and quite intuitive.
>
> In the end, what really annoyed me about both rpm and dpkg is that
> they had FreeBSD's ports as well as pkgadd/rm to look at, learn from
> and build on. While I can understand the decision to go away from
> pkgadd/rm, I cannot understand why they did not build on top of
> FreeBSD's ports. Nothing short of a cussed NIH attitude can explain
> it.
>
> > As to pkgadd/rm, well, the less said about these, the better. I'll be glad
> > if I never have to use them again.
>
> Do tell us about the problems with pkgadd / rm. I agree that they're
> not perfect, but they certainly achieve most of the functionality
> offered by dpkg and rpm.
>
> > As to portability - dpkg seems to run on several non-Linux Unices just
> > fine, from what I hear. (And in any case, you can unpack every .deb with
> > ar, gzip, and tar (in that sequence). But you knew that, didn't you?)
>
> The question was, why invent a new, gratuitously incompatible method
> to achieve something that was already quite possible to do well with
> existing tools such as make and friends? I've yet to see an earthly
> reason why building packages with dpkg and rpm is so different from
> what would be naturally expected:
>
> % make configure all package install
> --
> Rajappa Iyer <rsi@lucent.com>           #include <std_disclaimer.h>
>         We're too busy mopping the floor to turn off the faucet.

hmm interesting argument.I use slackware for my developmental n testing stuff.  I was considering
changing to Debian because of its inherent nature of checking to see what versions you have of all
required packages.  Should I stick with Slackware which is currently working well :)
or take a punt and run into similar problems when I wanna run a simple makefile??