Debian's apt-get vs Mandrake's urpmi?

Deven Phillips asks: "I have been using Linux-Mandrake for quite a while now, and I wanted to know what Slashdotters think of the two rival package management systems available for Mandrake: apt and urpmi. I have been playing with both (apt is available in the Contribs section), and I have to say that so far urpmi is winning. I have always heard that apt-get is the best, so I am surprised by my conclusions. Am I missing something? Is apt for RPM not as mature as the deb counterpart?" I, for one, would have liked to have heard the reasons as to why Deven feels that urpmi is superior, but maybe there are a few of you out there who feel the same way, that can communicate this as well as he can. For those of you who have tried both, what features do you like out of the two of them, and which tool serves your needs the best?

Comments

pfffft

[Clay Mitchell]

Real men just download the entire contents of slackware-current :)

hmm, everyone's a winner

[VAXGeek]

Actually, I would say that the two packages are functionally equivalent, since the "cross pollination of ideas" was more than evident in this case. So, both Debian and Mandrakesoft can be commended in their creation of two very nice software management system. Most people would say that apt-get is the equivalent to the "install-anywhere" program so prevalent in Windows. Development of easy installation programs such as these help improve Linux's acceptance in the IS world today.
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless

Another one...

[11thangel]

Mandrake 8 (and possibly earlier releases) comes with a tool called MandrakeUpdate. It's a rather nice GUI tool similar to Ximian Update, for all you gnome users. I haven't tried it much due to my 80 gig hdd croaking, but from what i saw it was pretty nice.

I would also like to know...

[jmv]

Is emacs better than vi?
Is gnome better than KDE?
Is AMD better than Intel?
Is Mandrake better than RedHat?
Is red better than blue?

OK, enough for now... Let the flames begin.

Debian is more than apt

[krmt]

When people talk about how great apt is, they're really talking about how great Debian as a whole is. One thing that really impressed me in to moving from Mandrake to Debian a while back was that Debian felt whole. It was a system, where Mandrake felt like a bunch of packages thrown together.

With apt, you not only get your package dependencies solved along with the latest software, you get the work that was put in to making Debian a coherent system that adheres to the Debian policy. You get a specific maintainer for each package who will (almost) always respond promptly to emails about bugs and such. You can get a ton of help on Debian's mailing lists. You yourself can even become a maintainer if you've got the gusto to do so. Granted, Mandrake covers a lot of these areas (and has a nicer install) but Debian feels like a system, where every other distro I tried just felt like a bunch of packages. Granted, I haven't tried Mandrake in a while, but somehow I just don't think what they're doing will match up to Debian's volunteer maintainer model, even now.

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Re:Debian is more than apt

[_Mustang]

With apt, you not only get your package dependencies solved along with the latest software, you get the work that was put in to making Debian a coherent system that adheres to the Debian policy.

But isn't that what the whole concept of "distribution" was supposed to mean? After all, what makes or breaks the operating system isn't necessarily how good _it_ is, but how well it "enables" the use of the software that is used for *task*.

On that note, while I really think apt is killer I also agree that the true success behind it is the work done by the package maintainers.
Flame me all you want but I think what's really needed is some definitive standard for packages similar to the Win-world Installshield idea. There should be some way for the install routine (make install?) to check some DB (linux has a few of those around, right?) and see if a particular app is installed and where. Think the windows registry but for info purposes only so that the install can be more efficient. This would allow me to automate the use *.deb, *.rpm or compile my own and still keep track of apps and dependencies..

Re:Debian is more than apt

[dbarclay10]

Hehehe :) Well, at least part of your problem was unfamiliarity with the system you were using.

Firstly, there are currently three different official Debians:

Potato; this is the stable variant. Just like you described, very little is updated. If it has BIND 8.2.3, and a security hole is found, but a fix is only available in BIND 9, then it'll be backported to 8.2.3. You might think that's absurd. But in Debian, "stable" means that things won't change out from underneath you. Read on.

Woody; this is the "testing" variant. New packages are uploaded daily, and already-existing packages are upgraded. Packages in Woody have been around for a while, so you should have no problems. However, this isn't "stable", so don't expect everything to be absolutely perfect all the time no matter what.

Sid; this is the "unstable" variant. When an updated package is available, it goes here before it goes anywhere else. Eventually, it'll move into Woody, but not before it's been tested well. Personally, I find Sid about as stable as most end-user Red Hat boxes. However, accidents do happen, and you should *NOT* run Sid unless you know how to fix things. Yes, this includes having a boot/root rescue diskette, and knowing how to use it. :)

Now, if you run a server, you should run Potato. That's what it's meant for. But you need BIND 9? XFree86 4.x? No problem, there are several options. The first is to add a "deb-src" line pointing to Sid or Woody, in /etc/apt/sources.list . Then just 'apt-get -b source bind' or 'apt-get -b source xfree86'. That will download the source, (attempt) to compile it, and then give you .debs, ready for safe(ish) installation.

The other option is to get unoffical .debs. Many package maintainers will compile their packages for Potato, and place them in their home directory on http://people.debian.org for Potato users to download and install. For instance, XFree86 4.x for Potato is available at http://people.debian.org/~cpbotha/. Perl 5.6, and all the Debian build tools are also available. KDE2 packages are available from http://debian.kdyc.com . You get the idea. These are, of course, unofficial packages. So don't expect everything to work perfectly.

Frankly, if you're running a server, you probably shouldn't be using the latest version of BIND or Sendmail or Apache or whatever. You should probably be running a version that's older and more "secure". Like I said, any security fixes are backported to the version that's in Potato, and are installed when you 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade'.

Have a good day :)

Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)

Re:Debian is more than apt

[Ramses0]

100% agreement on the previous comment. All packages on debian must adhere to policy, which is not overbearing, but rational and well thought out. Plus since all packages in debian *must* follow policy, what you learn for one package applies directly to every other package on the system.

Part of policy is that every program must have a man page, which was very nice when I was first learning to use linux.

I have always had very good results from mailing the maintainers of packages. So far, I've traded emails with the maintainers of: xawtv, makedev, php4, gabber, and xserver-common (who in some cases were also the developers of the packages in question, not including miscellaneous bug reports).

I've only had to mail maintainers since I've been using the 'unstable' distribution (which has only crashed once), and it's usually just been a heads up that some library upgrade broke some other function that their code depended on. This is not a problem when dealing with the stable distribution because it does not change.

Before that, I was able to get all the help I needed from the debian IRC channels (all IRC programs come defaulted to the debian irc servers, another nice touch).

I'm sure that once I mail my latest buglet report to the maintainer of icecast-server (program is compiled with crypted password support, but configuration files default to storing non-crypted passwords) that it will be responded to promptly, and integrated into the next update of icecast.

One final bit of debian evangalization: debian (almost) invented the word Free (with a capital 'f') when talking about Free/Open/GPL software. All programs distributed with debian must allow redistribution, must come with source code, and must allow modification of that source code. (well, mostly- some exceptions apply). This means that I *OWN* all the software on my computer in a way that's ten times more real than any software that I've paid for (just so long as I'm willing to share).

Lest you think that debian is all a bed of roses, not all programs are up to date, packages are maintained based on whether somebody is interested or not. Sometimes the developer of one program will break other programs unless versions are kept relatively in-sync. And finally, since you didn't pay for it, you can't really complain to anyone when there is a problem. The only solution is to revert and/or retry.

All in all, I am very pleased with debian, it does it's job quietly, and does it well.

--Robert

What people forget...

[dbarclay10]

When people say "apt-get" is best, they usually arn't referring to the tool itself. While it is a decent tool(as is dpkg, which is what does the actually package installation and maintenance), what really makes Debian so good is the packages themselves.

All Debian packages are put together by volounteers. Of course, some get paid. But I don't know of any that are currently getting paid, that wern't volounteers first. apt-get is just a tool. What *really* makes the difference is the time spent on the packages themselves. Mandrake, Red Hat, and the rest only have so many people. Each has to take care of dozens of packages. They just can't spend as much time on them. In Debian, most of the ~7000 current packages, most maintainers just take care of two or three related packages. They usually use them, too. So most maintainers take their time and do things right.

I'm not saying Red Hat or Mandrake arn't any good :) What I *am* saying is that the tool used to install the packages is a fairly minor issue. What's more important is the time the maintainers put into the packages themselves.

That being said, apt-get was written from the ground up with dpkg in mind. It can be ported to use rpm(obviously), but I don't doubt that urpmi works better(when it comes to dealing with rpms) :)

Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)

apt-get/dselect

[spongman]

I use apt-get and dselect on my debian system, and it's a dream. I remember installing slackware from scratch back in '93 - upgrading linux has certainly come a long way.

I guess you should probably use the package installer that's native to the distribution you're using. That way you can be sure to get all the right bits, with the correct libs, etc...

The good thing with debian is that almost everything you're likely to need is right there on their servers, you don't have to go and find the packages on some server somewhere. For example I wanted to install apache and squid last week, I typed one command, it downloaded all the stuff, and within a minute or two of waiting for the downloads (I didn't have to type anything) both were configured and running. If your system is also that easy, then stick with it.

Aren't we being a little closed-minded here?

[SumDeusExMachina]

Well, there was quite a long time (up until today, in fact!) that I thought of the Slashdot population as a very open-minded community who preferred to let the world know what the best product was, not the one that best suited their politics. However, my faith has been shaken today.

While I would have to agree with the crowds of Debian users here that apt-get is indeed a superior tool to whatever Mandrake is using these days, I would have to disagree on the ultimate choice of best software package management system.

Now, Linux is a great operating system in general, and I love the apt-get part of Debian in particular, but why does it have to be on the command line? I hardly think that the average person, say, my grandfather, for example, would be able to deal with learning all the arcane aspects of a command line utility. To most, it is just too frustrating, poorly documented, and complicated. What we really need in a modern operating system is a package manager that the average Joe or my grandfather could use.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Windows Update yet? Not only is it a fully graphical tool, but it automatically detects what software your computer needs, without sending that information to a third party, and then gives you an easy install wizard to update everything. Sure, some things may require a reboot, but there is a lot of Linux software that also requires a reboot to function properly. Personally, I think it is a far superior tool to apt-get, because it can also make recommendations on what kind of cool new screen saver you might want to check out, or update DirectX to improve your gaming framerates and such.

And, of course, it is very handy for patching all those security holes that invariably pop up in MS software, such as the notorious Outlook holes that have caused more than one system administrator a headache. Think about it, if an update tool is easy enough for the average user to utilize, then we won't have to worry about upgrading everyone's Linux machines when the latest BIND or Sendmail exploit hits Bugtraq. It would greatly improve the image of Open Source software when no one goes on a massive hacking spree and compromises a ton of machines for their DDoS wars.

Re:Aren't we being a little closed-minded here?

[Peaker]

- Apt has libraries to ease the life of anyone who wants to create front-ends. As a result you have:
- Gnome-apt
- aptitude
- console-apt
- etc. etc. etc
(Check on your facts)
Apt has many front-ends, mostly on the text screen, but 'graphic' and useful.

Debian isn't targetting the average Joe Schmoe, or at least not in its current status.

Windows Update is not even comparable to apt-get, because it only updates a very small subset of the installed software. In Windows, every piece of software has its own code to update itself from the web (Except MS software, perhaps).
Windows Update does not handle libraries upgrades/etc as well as apt-get, because Windows hardly has any package management for installed libraries (apart from that useless registry list of DLL's) at all, not to mention any other shared files/resources.

In summary, Windows Update may be useful to upgrade those 4 or 5 apps you mainly use, but apt-get can upgrade any one of the ~7000 packages you potentially install (Due to conflicts, its actually probably a ~1000 less than that).
Apt-get has libraries allowing easy creation of front-ends, and various ones already exist.

Get a clue.

Re:Aren't we being a little closed-minded here?

[garrettl]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Windows Update yet? Not only is it a fully graphical tool, but it automatically detects what software your computer needs, without sending that information to a third party, and then gives you an easy install wizard to update everything. Sure, some things may require a reboot, but there is a lot of Linux software that also requires a reboot to function properly. Personally, I think it is a far superior tool to apt-get, because it can also make recommendations on what kind of cool new screen saver you might want to check out, or update DirectX to improve your gaming framerates and such.

A Few points...

• People have already mentioned Windows Update
• Neither apt-get nor urpmi submit information to a third party (unless you count the hits that the file downloads cause -- but then both apt-get and urpmi download files from various mirrors. Windows Update, unless I am mistaken, all comes from Microsoft...)
• Yes, there's a lot of software that requires a reboot while using Linux distribution. I'll summarize it in three words: The Linux Kernel. That's right, the only reason you'd have to reboot your computer is to upgrade the kernel. Name another "reason", and I bet you can do that just fine in userland without rebooting.
• Windows Update tends to break things, and your box is sometimes rendered useless.
• Windows Update doesn't really sort out dependancies; it just knows what you can and can not install at the same time. It does not take care to do what you say; you have to do things the way it dictates.
• You can not download 3rd party software or provide a configuration option for any outside sources within Windows Update.

Anyway, enough diversions. I'm going back to reinstalling Debian a machine that was once running Mandrake for a while. "urpmi", although nice, didn't hold a candle to "apt-get" -- and this is precisely the reason I'm switching the distro back. Mandrake's stuff does have an easy enough graphical frontend, however.

Really quick, however... my largest complaints with urpmi are, as follows:

• One must download an ~8M description file from a single server
• The dependancy handling isn't done as well as under Debian
• Error messages under urpmi aren't as helpful or descriptive as those of apt-get
• You cannot define your own multiple sources as easily with urmi as you can with apt-get
• When paths of software or various other somewhat important things occur, it does not optionally notify you like apt-get can
• Since it takes a long time to download and parse the large file (see above), urpmi was noticably slower, especially in the GUI when it had to refill lists and trees.

For what it's worth, console-apt (and using apt-get by itself too, of course) usually suffices for me, but I would love to see a useable GTK+ based frontend for Debian's package system one of these days. I think a lot of other people would like that as well.

If we had the concepts of Red Carpet, the slickness of Windows Update, the widespread use of urpmi, and the power of apt-get all rolled into one tool, it would truly be the killer upgrade apt -- err -- I mean app. (:

well, in a battle of "which sounds stupider"...

[Wakko Warner]

"urpmi" wins, hands down. It sounds like what a gassy baby would say if it could talk.

--

A History of Red versus Blue:

[Ted V]

A history of the eternal battle of red versus blue, in different contexts.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
"Red! No, blue! Aaaaahhhh!"

Red: 1, Blue: 0

The Matrix:
"Take the Blue pill and you wake up and believe whatever you want to believe. Take the Red pill and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Red: 2, Blue: 0

Pokemon:
Charizard, a fire pokemon, is weak to Blastoise, a water pokemon

Red: 2, Blue: 1

Google:
Searches for "red": 23.6 million
Searches for "blue": 17.3 million

Red: 3, Blue: 1

Cold War:
Red = Commie Bastards!
Blue = Good Americans!

Red: 3, Blue: 2

It seems that Red has still eaked out a narrow win over blue... For this time!

-Ted

life isn't THAT simple...

[deno]

First, Mandrake distros (with exception of "corporate server" and "MandrakeSecurity", which target different public) are always extremly up-to-date, while debian takes forever to issue a new distribution.
Obviously, slower developement cyclus means that there is more time to take care of details... Unfortunate side-efect is that many "stable" debian packages tend to be very obsolete.

Second, there is no such thing as third-party debian package, while third-party rpm packages are abundant. Quite obviously, updating a system with tons of third-party packages is a rather difficult task.

Third, average debian user is far more knowledgable than average Mandrake user. (He has to be, simply because getting a debian system up and running is by far more difficult than doing the same thing with Linux-Mandrake.) Therefore, things which some Mandrake user reports as "evil mandrake stuff" (like: I installed some cooker packages, had to force the install, because it kept requiring some "dependencies", and guess what? now my system is broken!!!) would never be reported as such by debian users.

There is more, but I think you got the message: things aren't as simple as they look from a high debian-guru ivory tower. ;-)

As for apt-get and urpmi question, things ARE rather simple: urpmi is better than apt if you use Mandrake distro, simply because Mandrake distro and urpmi were built with each-other in mind. I can think of only two cases when using apt-get on mandrake distro makes sense:

1) ex-debianers which are familiar with apt will obviously prefer to use the known tool
2) urpmi (and co.) make a local database of all rpm repositories, and updating the DB takes some time. Therefore, apt may be a better tool for people who often update their systems using cooker rpms. (this may have been adressed already, I haven't checked lately.

In case you use Debian, there is no urpmi, so apt is definitively better. .-) And.. do not bother porting urpmi to debian - it will be just as useless there, as apt is on a Mandrake system.

The real question...

[Local Loop]

The real question is not "which package system is better?", but "which distribution does the best job of managing their releases and updates?"

I don't care what system they use - my priorities (aside from correctness issues) are:

• Do they keep dependencies at a minimum?
  I don't want to install 30 packages just to get PHP working. And why does every single Red Hat app seem to require Apache (RPM) and PHP (RPM)?
• Do they keep library versions well syncronized with available apps?
  And avoid requiring ancient versions of, say, zlib, that won't play well with newer apps.
• Is the auto update tool easy to use?
  That is, does it present dependencies clearly and show you release notes and advisories. I'd like to know *why* Apache has been updated, so I know if it really affects me.
• Can I depend on the vendor to quickly release security critical updates
  If I have to resort to source in an emergency, it defeats the whole point of packaging.

By the way, I'm a huge fan of source installs for apps, becuase I find them much easy to configure and upgrade than packages. But I'd love to use RPMS if it were practical.

-Loopy

No third party deb packages?

[Cardinal]

Second, there is no such thing as third-party debian package, while third-party rpm packages are abundant.

Of course there are third party Debian packages. I see project sites all the time these days offering their own deb packages. Additionally (and even better) they offer their own apt-get URLs for people who wish to use their third-party Debian packages. Currently, my sources.list includes three such lines. One for E17, one for efm, and one for gabber.

Third-party packages was also the only way to get KDE packaged for Debian until it was finally included.

Now of course, they will not be nearly as abundant as RPMs simply because of the number of RPM-based distros out there, and the ease of making RPMs as opposed to DEBs. But they are there, even if there isn't a debfind.net yet :)