From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Dec 18 12:52:27 2000 From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 18 12:52:25 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (okc-65-26-235-186.mmcable.com [65.26.235.186]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 961E937B400 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:52:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 31092 invoked by uid 100); 18 Dec 2000 20:52:18 -0000 From: Mike Meyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <14910.30978.780929.304694@guru.mired.org> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:52:18 -0600 (CST) To: "Victor R. Cardona" Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports vs. RPM was:This will replace Linux? In-Reply-To: <41621507@toto.iv> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 10) "Capitol Reef" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Victor R. Cardona types: > Christian Fl=FCgel wrote: > > From: "Chris Dillon" > >> RPM isn't used because the RPM system sucks. FreeBSD has a superi= or > >> packaging and ports system, and it uses it. > > I have always wondered why FreeBSD claims that the Ports System is = superior > > to the RPM packaging system used in most of the Linux flavors. Basi= cally, > > from my point of view, both should provide similar features with re= gards to > > Dependancy checking etc. . > > Could anyone point out what makes the Ports collection better than = Linux RPM > I actually like both systems, and they both have their advantages. Po= rts=20 > are better at handling dependencies. They will go out and get anythin= g=20 > that is required. RPM will only tell you that a file is missing, but = it=20 > will not tell you where that file can be obtained. >=20 > I find upgrading RPMs to be a little easier then ports, but that may=20= > just be personal bias because I have used them longer. No, it's not a bias - it's real. RPMs have a mechanism for upgrading an installed package; packages don't. For me, the real advantage of the ports/package system is the *ports* part of it. That it's not noticably harder to build a port from sources - only set to install where I want it - than to install a package is a major benefit that RPMs don't have. I'm sure that everyone who builds RPMs has ported the software to Linux, but there isn't a standardized way to package that, or a repository of them you can access (at least, not that I'm aware of). =09=09=09=09http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Unix/FreeBSD consultant,=09email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message