Fedora 18 Will Preview A New Package Manager

[finalzone]

I find it even now a problem that something that is useless for normal usage (file dependencies) and most of the time problematic to use to allow. In debian you have your package versions and formats and you have 10 of them, thats a problem right now, they try to make less diverted, so that you have not 20 possibilities to do the same thing.

Again, you seem to not know what you are talking about when it comes to rpm world.

So I think its valid to argue that that can be more negative than good, naturaly I cannot forbid some guys to fork the official rpm and add there stupid stuff, but when this stupid stuff is in the offical redhat implemantation its a problem.

Your writing does not have any logical sense. The same can happen on dpkg or any package manager. DNF is the next generation Yum package manager not its replacement. When you want to make major in apt-get as preview, would you keep the name during that phase?

So yes maybe nobody or nearly nobody uses such stuff than its more a theoretical discussion thats not very problematic in the praxis, but there I come to the next point that is really a problem.

What do you exacty mean?

In Ubuntu and Debian there are more official packages than in fedora, and as example ubuntu have universe where most of the unofficial packages are into.
In fedora that is not similar, they dont have a official community "universe" repos, the closest they have to that is rpm-fusion, but there are mixed together packages from different sites. So different qualitys.

Number of officials packages are irrelevent when some of them are either depreciated or obsolete. RPM Fusion repository is essentially community universe rep that provides packages the official project cannot include due to patents law or closed sources. Ubuntu universe and Debian also got packages from different sites, multiverse repository is a mess.

so such problems with strict packaging rules are even more important... for universe they have the rpmfusion server, but there seems to be nearly not at least no official quality control.

That sentence exposes your lack of knowledege from Fedora Project and RPM Fusion which closely follow Fedora Project policies.

so I agree to have user-packages so that from all stuff there is a package, even if it is not perfectly in documentation as example, but you should have 2 spaces. like univers vs ppa in ubuntu, in fedora there is basicly no universe you get only ppalike stuff from rpmfusion.

From your logic, RPM Fusion is the closest of Ubuntu universe not ppa. Fedora does have an equivalent of PPA (Personal Package Archives) on http://repos.fedorapeople.org/. For the quality of package, both Fedora Project and RPM Fusion have a testing repository to make sure packages will not break stable release. You post only shows the lack of understanding.

and its called out from others here, that they need more quality control more freezing and stuff... I agree to that, and to follow the official wiki on chromium way to go, and then only become crap this way and I have to magicaly know that google gives away not only source files but also rpms. Is to much and even that is not very good, because I am not using windows so I want a few repos where I get my software from and I want that maybe a non-google worker saw that package and wrote some integration packages^^.

You describe a third party that either project has no control.

[AdamW]

Really now? Can't you just take a hint from the debian process? Freeze the damn thing and only let stuff through after the maintainers have neatly argued the case and provided a nice clean diff? If not, then don't let the update through.

That's exactly what we do, and what's described in my post. Maybe read it again.

The point is that while the _release_ repository is frozen, developers may as well start working on post-release updates. If someone proposes something as a release blocker (i.e. asks for a freeze exception) and we think about it and say 'no, it's not a severe enough issue to break freeze, you can just ship an update that fixes it', why can't they start working on the update right then? What's the point in making everyone wait until after the release is done to start working on post-release updates? There isn't one. So we don't: once the freeze is in place, you can happily keep working on packages to produce updates, it's just that they're now effectively 'streamed' to go out as post-release updates, not into the release package set. Since they can work on the updates perfectly well before the release is actually sent out, and our update testers can test and verify the updates perfectly well before the release is actually sent out, there's equally little point in artificially delaying the updates so they come out, say, a week after release - why not just have them available on release day, if they've gone through the proper testing process? So that's what we do.

I guess the way it might seem a bit weird if you're not really involved in the process is that we think the changes are safe enough to go out as 0-day updates, but not go into the release package set - isn't that odd? Well, at first it may seem so, but it really isn't. Putting packages into the release package set has consequences which don't apply to them going out as updates. They might cause issues in the image generation process, or they might cause issues during installation, for packages that get baked into the installer; neither of those is a problem if they go out as an update. And in the theoretical case where a 'bad apple' gets through, it's much MUCH better for it to get through as an update than to get into the frozen stream we're working on turning into the release. A bad update can simply be withdrawn or superseded without having any impact on our work to stabilize the release; and even before it's 'officially' discovered and dealt with, it's much easier for an end user to deal with a bad update than with a bad package that sneaks onto the release images. You can just skip the update and stick with the good version of the package from the 'frozen' set.

[blackiwid]

I find it even now a problem that something that is useless for normal usage (file dependencies) and most of the time problematic to use to allow. In debian you have your package versions and formats and you have 10 of them, thats a problem right now, they try to make less diverted, so that you have not 20 possibilities to do the same thing.

So I think its valid to argue that that can be more negative than good, naturaly I cannot forbid some guys to fork the official rpm and add there stupid stuff, but when this stupid stuff is in the offical redhat implemantation its a problem.

So yes maybe nobody or nearly nobody uses such stuff than its more a theoretical discussion thats not very problematic in the praxis, but there I come to the next point that is really a problem.

In Ubuntu and Debian there are more official packages than in fedora, and as example ubuntu have universe where most of the unofficial packages are into.

In fedora that is not similar, they dont have a official community "universe" repos, the closest they have to that is rpm-fusion, but there are mixed together packages from different sites. So different qualitys.

so such problems with strict packaging rules are even more important... for universe they have the rpmfusion server, but there seems to be nearly not at least no official quality control. so I agree to have user-packages so that from all stuff there is a package, even if it is not perfectly in documentation as example, but you should have 2 spaces. like univers vs ppa in ubuntu, in fedora there is basicly no universe you get only ppalike stuff from rpmfusion.

and its called out from others here, that they need more quality control more freezing and stuff... I agree to that, and to follow the official wiki on chromium way to go, and then only become crap this way and I have to magicaly know that google gives away not only source files but also rpms. Is to much and even that is not very good, because I am not using windows so I want a few repos where I get my software from and I want that maybe a non-google worker saw that package and wrote some integration packages^^.

but yes not that big problems, just saying that its still a bit worse than ubuntu in some ways.

And maybe you are right its maybe not the format but what people did with it and do today... So I thought its the format but in reality its the people missuse it and less quality control than in debian/ubuntu packages.

[droidhacker]

I just wanted to say that if rpm (as programm sucks) thats also a problem of yum... that was my point, and if dpkg would suck, then apt would also have problems.

so to say yum is not rpm (programm) and therefor when I say rpm sucks does not matter because yum != rpm is not true...



for that I could strangle you like homer does bart ^^. You can have a different opinion than mine, no problem with that, but to say without any proof or any anything to say you dont understand what you are talking about (and therefore you are not allowed to have a opinion sucks, and is just a lie).
The commend between my last and yours did agree to my point (that rpm had (big) issues) that was my point, not more not less. But also its true that rpm allowes file-dependencies, I thinkt thats very dangerous and some murrons will use that, that would cause problems.

I cut out a bit of your rant that didn't seem to be related to the topic.

I don't see what your problem with the rpm system (program) is. You say that it "sucks", but you don't give any rational reason WHY. The typical problems in the past with installation of rpm packages (using the rpm program) was as I described previously -- missing or circular dependencies. In other words, the rpm command would fail because the rpm package had dependencies that didn't exist. This wasn't always fun or easy, but it wasn't a failure or defect in the program itself. The program was intended to ABORT when dependencies were missing -- this is correct and necessary behavior.

Now if the program depended on something that wasn't present, but RPM didn't recognize that this dependency wasn't present, that is actually a failure in the rpm PACKAGE, not the rpm PROGRAM. These failures are basically the same thing as code bugs. You can install a program that simply does not work -- there is no way for the package manager to check the code and verify that the program isn't a worthless heap of garbage, so I will state that this failure mode is not a failure in rpm at all. Further, it is a failure common to dpkg packages.

The resolvable dependencies is where YUM comes into play. Because yum can resolve layered dependencies and install everything required. Obviously, this doesn't help with defective RPMs, but it certainly and absolutely corrects the problem of circular or missing dependencies. Under the condition of circular dependencies, rpm has a mode for sequential installation if that overseer takes on the role of dependency management.


Now here is the thing. You also haven't given any kind of explanation as to why you think that dpkg is any better or different than RPM. dpkg does exactly the same thing; it contains a list of dependencies, it contains a bunch of files, it contains a bunch of scripts. The dpkg program takes the deb package, which is practically the same thing as an rpm package, confirms its dependencies, runs scripts, copies files, and exits. It also aborts when discrepancies are found, just like rpm does. It has the same failures and same failure modes as rpm does.


You see, your problem/misconception, is that each individual part of the puzzle should be equipped to solve the entire problem all by itself. RPM does NOT "suck". It simply doesn't perform the entire job that you are demanding of it. Along with yum, however, the entire job IS performed.

RPM is not a command that you would normally call direct. If you do, you're asking for problems, because there could be a thousand dependencies to install one program, or there could be a thousand packages that depend on a package you're trying to remove or upgrade. You aren't equipped to track all those by yourself. Yum is. RPM doesn't have "big issues". RPM does a specific job, and does it extremely well.

Instead, you use the FRONTEND, yum. If you want to install a package, you "yum install ...." or "yum localinstall file.rpm". It will track down the dependencies, prompt you to make sure you want to install them all, and do so. You want to remove a package, yum will track down all the packages that depend on that package, and prompt you if you wish to uninstall them ALL.


Imagine, for a moment; in your driveway, there is, sitting on the ground, an engine. You want to go for a drive, and mess around with the engine for a while before deciding that there is no frame, body, seat, steering wheel, etc. --> you can't operate that engine by itself as a motor vehicle on the road. Does the engine suck because you can't drive it on the road without it being part of a car? Of course not! Add all the missing pieces and THEN you will have a working system. This is where your problem is with RPM --> You are expecting something unreasonable out of it. Something it was never intended to do.



Now I also have some concern over your complaint regarding file dependencies. As you've mentioned, RPM supports both file AND PACKAGE dependencies. You are complaining about people being stupid and using file dependencies where not appropriate... well people can do all kinds of stupid things in developing packages, in writing code. We can write an infinite loop into the kernel that copies blocks of memory back and forth for no reason. Are we banning the right to do stupid things now? No, that isn't appropriate. There are circumstances where file dependencies do make sense, such as when a file is generated by a process, rather than being part of a package.


At this point, I have to stop. If you want to continue to complain about rpm, you need to provide specific facts or arguments that support your position. Just screaming out "it sucks" it totally inadequate.

[Wilfred]

tl;dr summary: there is a perfectly good reason there are a lot of updates on the day of a Fedora release. It's because of a process that's been standard in the software industry for bleeding decades. It is not, shockingly enough, because a major distribution community backed by a billion-dollar software company is staffed entirely by drooling imbeciles. I realize it's hard to accept, but believe it or not, most of us actually know what the fuck we're doing most of the time.

Sorry to be so sarcastic, but seriously. Yeesh.

Really now? Can't you just take a hint from the debian process? Freeze the damn thing and only let stuff through after the maintainers have neatly argued the case and provided a nice clean diff? If not, then don't let the update through.

[blackiwid]

I just install the google chrome rpm straight from google... automatically adds google's repos and keeps it totally up to date.

ok that seems to be a good workaround... but then at least fedora should link to this, I am used to install my stuff only from a community repos + normal repo... in 99,9% of the times ^^

So ok thanks for that one less problem.

[bwat47]

I just wanted to say that if rpm (as programm sucks) thats also a problem of yum... that was my point, and if dpkg would suck, then apt would also have problems.

so to say yum is not rpm (programm) and therefor when I say rpm sucks does not matter because yum != rpm is not true...



for that I could strangle you like homer does bart ^^. You can have a different opinion than mine, no problem with that, but to say without any proof or any anything to say you dont understand what you are talking about (and therefore you are not allowed to have a opinion sucks, and is just a lie).
The commend between my last and yours did agree to my point (that rpm had (big) issues) that was my point, not more not less. But also its true that rpm allowes file-dependencies, I thinkt thats very dangerous and some murrons will use that, that would cause problems.

So maybe you have the oposite opinion than I do, thats your right, but dont say to me that I dont know what I am talking about just because you dont get my point.

(sorry for that aggressiv tone, but if you have 10-15 years of experince with linux use it for nearly all, I have even made own deb packages, and did write some small gentoo install-scripts) used (shurly not the last few years but before that) a bit suse, more mandrake and stuff, so I have a (small) clue what I am talking about and I think I know enough to at least have a own opinion to that topic)

BACK TO FEDORA

back to fedora testet it, not so bad, packaging wasnt the problem, what was problem was that I could not use my ubuntu home, so I needed to use a selinux command (I did not select it in the installer but replaced it later manually) thats a bit confusing surely a better error could come that just not allowed to change directory to my home dir when I try to login...

But ok, solved... now I have a bigger problem I think its only a problem of pulseaudio or the usb-driver of my usb-soundcard, under linux that works without problems, in fedora I tried it at the moment only with minitube, will try it with other sourced but at the beginning it works that some dmest usb-errors pop up and it stops working and nearly freezes my desktop ^^ So you will not fix it here, just wanted to give a bit a feedback to my experince ^^ its a U-Control UCA202 usb-soundcard btw....

else I had no issues with yum, oh yes chromium is very old version that also crashes very often which I had from a "stable" repo what I installed like descriped here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Chromium (so the semi-official package) ^^ thats a bit sad.

else than that I had no problem ohh ok the installed said that It could not install grub and then the old ubuntu grub was still there, so I had to mount the lvm partition under ubuntu and then update-grub found it and added it. (without the nice grafical boot, instead oldschool text-scroll-boot ^^ but it boots so good enough ^^)

I the case somebody is interested in my experience ^^

And btw, when the stable chromium package is buggy and very old (crashed in 10 minutes like 5 times) as the ubuntu (stable) chromium package is stable there should maybe be a current unstable package but the last unstable package is for fedora 15 and is a year old... so at least dont link to that package in the wiki I tried to install that and removed the package only to find out that there was no newer package anyway and I have to reinstall the old "stable" one...

I just install the google chrome rpm straight from google... automatically adds google's repos and keeps it totally up to date.

[blackiwid]

Formats are just format. package.rpm is clear enough. apt-get can also call dpkg install many times. What is so different?

I just wanted to say that if rpm (as programm sucks) thats also a problem of yum... that was my point, and if dpkg would suck, then apt would also have problems.

so to say yum is not rpm (programm) and therefor when I say rpm sucks does not matter because yum != rpm is not true...

It seems you do not know what you are talking about. Before pushing further assumption, please review about the functionality of a package manager like yum or apt. It is all about configuration. Fedora has more agressive update than Ubuntu which inherited Debian conservative approach.

for that I could strangle you like homer does bart ^^. You can have a different opinion than mine, no problem with that, but to say without any proof or any anything to say you dont understand what you are talking about (and therefore you are not allowed to have a opinion sucks, and is just a lie).
The commend between my last and yours did agree to my point (that rpm had (big) issues) that was my point, not more not less. But also its true that rpm allowes file-dependencies, I thinkt thats very dangerous and some murrons will use that, that would cause problems.

So maybe you have the oposite opinion than I do, thats your right, but dont say to me that I dont know what I am talking about just because you dont get my point.

(sorry for that aggressiv tone, but if you have 10-15 years of experince with linux use it for nearly all, I have even made own deb packages, and did write some small gentoo install-scripts) used (shurly not the last few years but before that) a bit suse, more mandrake and stuff, so I have a (small) clue what I am talking about and I think I know enough to at least have a own opinion to that topic)

BACK TO FEDORA

back to fedora testet it, not so bad, packaging wasnt the problem, what was problem was that I could not use my ubuntu home, so I needed to use a selinux command (I did not select it in the installer but replaced it later manually) thats a bit confusing surely a better error could come that just not allowed to change directory to my home dir when I try to login...

But ok, solved... now I have a bigger problem I think its only a problem of pulseaudio or the usb-driver of my usb-soundcard, under linux that works without problems, in fedora I tried it at the moment only with minitube, will try it with other sourced but at the beginning it works that some dmest usb-errors pop up and it stops working and nearly freezes my desktop ^^ So you will not fix it here, just wanted to give a bit a feedback to my experince ^^ its a U-Control UCA202 usb-soundcard btw....

else I had no issues with yum, oh yes chromium is very old version that also crashes very often which I had from a "stable" repo what I installed like descriped here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Chromium (so the semi-official package) ^^ thats a bit sad.

else than that I had no problem ohh ok the installed said that It could not install grub and then the old ubuntu grub was still there, so I had to mount the lvm partition under ubuntu and then update-grub found it and added it. (without the nice grafical boot, instead oldschool text-scroll-boot ^^ but it boots so good enough ^^)

I the case somebody is interested in my experience ^^

And btw, when the stable chromium package is buggy and very old (crashed in 10 minutes like 5 times) as the ubuntu (stable) chromium package is stable there should maybe be a current unstable package but the last unstable package is for fedora 15 and is a year old... so at least dont link to that package in the wiki I tried to install that and removed the package only to find out that there was no newer package anyway and I have to reinstall the old "stable" one...

[smitty3268]

I don't know - maybe before sending updates the folks at Canonical test them on a wide(r) range of hw, ask them about such details, have you?, they might be kind enough to actually tell your team some better or new ideas. Just saying.

They do indeed. In fact, most of their updates likely get tested by millions of Fedora users, before Canonical ever sends them out to their own users.

While more/better testing is always welcome, I'm afraid that's just the price you have to pay sometimes when using a bleeding-edge distro. The entire purpose of Fedora is to make those early tests, so that others can see how they go when deployed to a large audience of users/hardware, and if that's not your cup of tea then Ubuntu is probably the better choice for you.

[finalzone]

I know its not my fault that they use the same name for the format (rpm) as for the programm rpm in debian its clear when I talk about the format or the programm. so I meant the format not the rpm command. and even the programm because what is basicly yum or apt, they are databases and some kind of a loop of dpkg commands or over rpm commands. so your yum will call 100 times rpm -i .... if you install a programm with 99 dependencies.

Formats are just format. package.rpm is clear enough. apt-get can also call dpkg install many times. What is so different?

But on the rpm side you used to use that program much more often because a concept like ppa was not very common, today maybe yum does a good job, yes. but then again I hear here that it sucks more than debian even in speed and mem-usage, I dont like the file-dependency crap also not I think package dependencies is the way to go.

It seems you do not know what you are talking about. Before pushing further assumption, please review about the functionality of a package manager like yum or apt. It is all about configuration. Fedora has more agressive update than Ubuntu which inherited Debian conservative approach.