Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 18:18:34 -0600 From: "Victor R. Cardona" <vcardona@home.com> To: Christian =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fl=FCgel?= <Jeff.Kelly@t-online.de> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ports vs. RPM was:This will replace Linux? Message-ID: <3A3D57DA.8000204@home.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012152343050.55329-100000@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us> <02b701c0687e$ba894460$5fbd02d9@jeffkelly>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Christian Flügel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Dillon" <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us> > To: "Allen Lynch" <levothyroxine@hotmail.com > > >> RPM isn't used because the RPM system sucks. FreeBSD has a superior >> 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. Basically, > from my point of view, both should provide similar features with regards 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. Ports are better at handling dependencies. They will go out and get anything that is required. RPM will only tell you that a file is missing, but it will not tell you where that file can be obtained. I find upgrading RPMs to be a little easier then ports, but that may just be personal bias because I have used them longer. One major problem with RPM is that the RPM database which keeps track of what is installed on the system does tend to be fragile. If it gets corrupted, then the odds are good that you will never have an easy rpm install or upgrade again. Victor Cardona To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A3D57DA.8000204>