[SGVLUG] FC repository searches

[Jeff Carlson]

Mike Fedyk wrote:
> From reading the rest of your message I didn't quote, you seem to have
> experience with the RPM build process and an affinity with the Fedora
> project.  With this experience, why is it that you don't like doing
> packaging of .debs?  I have done packaging in neither, but am very
> interested in the reasoning why you prefer RPM and seem to have had bad
> experiences with .debs.

I should have added take everything I wrote with a grain of salt because
I was about 71% asleep when I wrote it and I was really not thinking
clearly.

With that out of the way, I'll attempt to answer your questions.

The first and possibly most important thing I should disclose is that I
am a volunteer in the Fedora Project.  I maintain a couple packages in
Extras.  With that, I would say I have pretty good experience building
RPMs and can generally spot problems with other people's spec files and
build configurations when there are issues.

First, on goals of the projects.  Fedora's goal is to provide two trees
of software, Core and Extras, that provide a complete GNU/Linux
operating system.  The idea is to have Core distributable on ISO images
for installation that can install an entire operating system with lots
of bells and whistles.  Then Extras provides a lot of other software
that isn't necessary in the core.  There are new Core releases a couple
times a year.  Fedora aims to push the latest and greatest open source
products to its users as soon as it is possible.  The price for this is
that older versions are not maintained for very long and trying to mix
installed software across releases is ill-advised.

On the other hand, Debian plods along with one seemingly monolithic
repository that really doesn't require upgrading the entire distribution
between releases.  The complete distro is something like a dozen CDs,
although it is far better (IMO) to get a single CD to do a minimal
install and grab all other software from the 'Net.

I've used Debian a couple times (actually installed via Knoppix) and for
some reason it broke on me each time.  Something about apt-get
dist-upgrade was just not functioning for me.  Maybe it was because I
started with Knoppix, not vanilla Debian, or maybe you're never supposed
to do dist-upgrade and nobody told me that.

Second, what is my beef against DEB packages?  Nothing, really.  But the
thought of shifting Fedora to them is seemingly insane to me.  To start
with, Fedora is, as is well known, sponsored by RedHat, and since RPM
was invented at RedHat, shifting to DEBs just isn't going to happen.
But furthermore, such a shift would mean at some point users would be
forced to deal with upgrading between releases with old software in RPM
and new in DEB, and I can only think about the world's greatest train
wrecks happening right there.

Essentially, there is no advantage of RPM over DEB or DEB over RPM.
Both do the same job, and both contain just about the same meta-info.
The main advantage DEB had over RPM in the last century was the APT
distribution system.  But then there was up2date, red-carpet, apt-rpm,
and now yum (and I haven't looked at smart).  I think yum is a very good
tool but it needs to get better (particularly faster) and that's not
going to happen if we quit using it.  Well, we're not going to quit
using it (at least not going back to apt-rpm) so that's not a big issue.

Does that answer your questions?

> Also, I've been using Debian since 1998, and I have no idea what
> direction it is heading in, and I'm not familiar with the internal
> politics of Fedora to know what its direction is.  Can you elaborate?

Well, I already started covering that above.  But yes, I'll elaborate.

Fedora serves as a launching ground for the RedHat Enterprise releases.
 The Fedora distro is aimed at developers, early adopters, and people
who want to live on the bleeding edge.  It isn't openly recommended for
production servers, although I have used it in such positions on
multiple occasions.  Other parts of Fedora's goals include remaining
completely free, using only Open Source software, avoiding patents or
restrictive licenses.  However, there is the livna repository for those
who have other needs.

I'm not sure if the Debian project has any similar and, more
importantly, published goals.  From my own experience and perception, I
think they have goals which push stability ahead of staying up to date.
 I recall installing Debian on a machine a couple years ago and being
faced with sendmail version 8.9.something, when the current version was
8.11.something.  I mean, wow, that was years behind.  Probably very
stable, but I was just glad I was only setting it up as a null client.
On the other hand, Debian seems like a very popular choice as a starting
ground to build another distro on top of.  From Knoppix to Linspire,
there are lots of examples of this.

I hope that's a bit clearer now.