Proper choice of package management strategy

Zeb Packard cyphercell4 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 19 14:21:16 PST 2007


First of I'd like to thank you for compaining about Ubuntu fanboyism
I've been thinking much the same thing for months now.

On 1/19/07, Nadav Vinik <nadavvin at gmail.com> wrote:
> The different distro don't define only with their PM.

Yeah, I know, but the PM is an integral part of having a unique distro.

>
> most of the PM`s converted from one distro to another, therefore there
> is apt to rpm.

Yea, I'm still considering installing a bunch of them under the
package_users system. Probably, after I'm done with BLFS though.

>
> The also smart and more common PM.

No comment.

>
> 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.
>
> Nadav
>

I realize that apt doesn't necessarily consume the rest of the system.
I was simply stating that Portage seems like it probably would and
there is at least an LFS hint on how to do that with apt. I'm
considering it as migration path away from Novell's Suse.

Generally, my decision was based on theory, rather than a closer
investigation of each PM, so I may one day come to regret it, but so
far I am very pleased.

The one thing I would really like though, is some sort of general
"here's how to handle dependancies in PM"



More information about the lfs-support mailing list