Proper choice of package management strategy
nadavvin at gmail.com
Fri Jan 19 13:04:11 PST 2007
The different distro don't define only with their PM.
most of the PM`s converted from one distro to another, therefore there
is apt to rpm.
The also smart and more common PM.
Moreover, choosing in apt don't make your distro Debian since Debian
compile to i386 and I quite sure that you don't have the i386
processor and the optimization which you use in LFS make your system
faster and smaller from equivalent Debian system.
On 1/19/07, Zeb Packard <cyphercell4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> My two cents.
> I'm on my second installation of lfs/blfs, and this time my goal was
> to expand on what I had learned before and make the system more
> manageable. This included installing and using a package manager of
> some sort. I considered package_users, apt, portage, rpm, and yast.
> Apt and Portage were easily my favorites for the simplicity of Apt and
> the ability of Portage to install from source (seems fitting right?)
> After thinking about it, it occured to me that installing Portage
> would effectively make my system a Gentoo system rather than an LFS
> system. I then came across a hint for apt that describes how to
> install Debian via the package manager alone. It then occured to me
> that all great distributions seem to be defined by their package
> manager (Red Hat - rpm, Slackware - Tarball, Debian - Apt, Gentoo -
> Portage, Suse - Yast), I then decided that LFS is a great distribution
> and package_users was unique to LFS. I'm using the hint for
> more_control_package_users and I am quite happy. I think the best
> thing about package_users is that I understand what it's doing and how
> it works without too much trouble. This makes it easy for me to
> customize, which I think LFS is all about.
> Anyways, that's how I recently came to my decision of which PM to use.
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
More information about the lfs-support