[H-GEN] SMALL RPM PROBLEM

[Tony Nugent]

[ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and     ]
[ Unix-related topics. Posts from non-subscribed addresses will vanish. ]

On Wed Feb 12 2003 at 15:52, Byron Ellacott wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 14:07, Greg Black wrote:
> > | rpm -Uvh foo.i386.rpm
> > | rpm -e foo.i386.rpm
> > | rpm -e foo is what you want.
> > to install it, then the tool you're condemned to use is just
> > broken.  (This afflicts the FreeBSD packages as well, it's not
> > just a Linux thing.)

Amazing.  For someone to say that (and all the other things that
were said in the reply quoted here)... for me this is an indication
that there exists a distinct lack of experience with and
understanding of how package management tools work.  Really.
Personally, I've found them to be *invaluable* - despite their
various quirks and the "glaring flaws" that have been previously
referred to.  Package name-space is a very minor (trivial!) issue
compared to the benefits.  rpm is _not_ broken, far from it.

  (Sorry Greg, I know how experienced and knowledgeable you are, but
  I really don't understand the obvious "bigoted" attitude you
  sometimes have towards things like this).

> Hence,
> 
> $ apt-get install foo
> $ apt-get remove foo
> $ apt-get show foo
> $ apt-get source foo

Sure, and rpm can do all that too, easy :)

(Not to mention that there exists apt for rpm).

What if installing foo conflicts with a foo that is already
installed?  And what if removing foo breaks packages that depend on
it being there?  What if an intended replacement for foo conflicts
with other things on the system (both files and dependendies), or
requires other things to be present that are not?

(I'm not so familiar with debian/apt, but sure that apt has these
sorts of sanity checks.  I come from a redhat perspective, but
probably everything I say here applies to debian as well).

What Robert K said in his previous reply is exactly right, rpm stops
you from outrightly (and carelessly) doing "bad things" unless you
know exactly what you are doing, before you "go nuts with --nodeps
and --force".

> debian, it's good for what ails you!

Debian, redhat, whatever.  Does it really matter? :)

All package management systems are useful (at least to some degree)
and often it is more a case of what you know and feel comfortable
with.  Redhat's rpm management does have some drawbacks, but there
is a lot of method in some of its apparent madness - it is no
accident that it has become so popular for other distributions
because of its capabilities and versatility.  It certainly gives you
a great degree of *control* over your system.

The presence of at least _some_ form of sane package management
utility is essential on something as complex as a unix box.

The point I'm making is that it is much better to have *something*
rather than nothing at all.  Which is the case for the otherwise
chaotic situation that comes from a "make install" approach, which
is close to what happens with, eg, slug^H^Hackware and some other
unix-based distros.  (Sorry, I have no idea what *BSD does things).

Such insanity (and finger-crossing) is definitely the situation with
what happens when installing packages for that other (in)famous
small-o os from redmond usa.  (Do you *really* know what any
particular setup.exe will do or has done to your system??)

  (heh, slackware: great for hackers, instanity for system admin and
  maintenance.  Don't get me wrong, I like it - but it is definitely
  a hacker's distro.  After using slackware for many years,
  switching to redhat was a blessing.  And no, apart from taking
  opportunity to fire shots at that m$-mongrel, I don't want to turn
  this into a unix-vs-linux thing or a distro-war:)

It is exactly this sort of insanity that spurned the very existence
of tools like rpm and apt.

As for Rick's problem (who started this thread to ask about his
problem) and for Ewan's earler issue with dhcp-3, it looks to me
that the real issue is a lack of familiarity with rpm and how it
works.  (That's ok, we all started out like that:)

Yes, it is (easily) possible to remove a problematic rpm package
(and all references to it in the rpm database) using rpm itself
(with the right parameters).

It is then also possible to grab the .src.rpm for a "problematic"
package (or even the tarball and grab/create a .spec file), rebuild
it (and perhaps modify its .spec file and/or patches if that is
needed), install the resulting binary .i386.rpm or .noarc.rpm
package(s), and then be happy again.

It's easy (if you know how), I do it regularly myself.  And the
result (for me) is that just about everything (with some specific
exceptions) that is installed on my own box(es) is in my rpm
database (that isn't otherwise in /usr/local, or of course in other
places like /usr/src).  Everything works (with, btw, many things
added and updated from the original release rpms), and I can easily
query what is there, where it came from and what package it belongs
to, and what it does.

Using raw tarballs on rpm-managed (and perhaps/probably apt-managed)
systems is, in general, fraught with danger unless you *know* that
"make install" will only put things into /usr/local/ (and perhaps
/etc/) -- and not haphazardly crunch anything else in the process.

The problem (again) as I see it, is not so much the management tools
themselves (as Greg seems to imply), but rather unfamiliarity with
them and the philosophy behind their use.

I'm not sure how to overcome that issue for newbies, the nature of
the beast is that it _seems_ to be complicated.  rtfm is one
solution of course - but finding, reading and then understanding it
can be daunting and confusing for a newbie.  Of course, experience
(and persistence - with perhaps some degree of "faith":) is a great
teacher.

apt, rpm, they both work (and work really well).  Just as long as
*something* like that is there to keep things sane.  I guess that
more crude tools based on databases produced by find or updatedb can
be useful too - as long as you remember to use them.  But that also
requires a steep learning curve, especially for a newbie beginner.

imho.

Hmm... perhaps it is an idea to have some talks at some forthcoming
meetings about how package management tools like apt and rpm work
and how to use them?  That's one way to help tackle the problem.

Personally, I'd like to know *much* more about using apt on debian
boxes.  And also learn how *BSD approaches this issue.

> Byron Ellacott <bje at apnic.net>
> APNIC

Cheers
Tony
(who has probably had too much coffee too late in the day:)

--
* This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
* Postings to this list are only accepted from subscribed addresses of
* lists 'general' or 'general-post'.  See http://www.humbug.org.au/