Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Binary Package Formats Compared

Posted by michael on from the one-deb-to-bind-them dept.

jjaimon writes "There is a document on different package formats used in Linux/Unix systems. Worth reading." Another reader sends in this guide to creating Debian packages which seems apropos here.

8 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. 5 years old! by spotter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Joey Hess created that document (at least the first revision) around 1998 IIRC, so it's not so much new news (guessing it's been posted here before, but probably around then as well)

  2. RPMs, an' all. by caluml · · Score: 5, Informative
    How to roll your own RPMs. Very useful. You can open up a package, say postfix, or mozilla, customise the config files for your organisation, and re-make it. Then you can just install at your leisure.

    Best thing about RPMs? GPG signatures built in. Try rpm -K whatever-x.x.x.rpm next time. Second best thing? rpm -Va.

    --
    Get your own free personal location tracker
  3. Re:Binary packages: Security suicide by GammaTau · · Score: 4, Informative

    The binary distributions usually come with a way to compile your own binary packages if you wish to inspect the source code. Just download the source RPMs or use "apt-get source". The "binary distributions" are generally binary and source distributions where you can choose whether you use prepackaged binaries or compile your own.

  4. Technically... by serial+frame · · Score: 4, Informative
    From a technical standpoint, I find that creating a Debian package would be far easier than creating a Red Hat package. Essentially, a packager does not require any special tools to create a package; all one needs is ar, tar, and gzip, and a text editor to write the package control data. This feature-by-design allows poor ol' me, without any Debian machines, to create packages, assuming a similar development environment and libraries as the Debian environment I'm targeting (which really should not be hard, provided the libraries I use are of the same version).

    Similarly, I could install a Debian binary package if that were all that existed for my particular environment, with a simple

    $ ar p data.tar.gz package-arch.deb | (cd /; tar -p -zxf -)

    (I digress, simple may be relative)

    On the other hand, since RPMs have a special binary header, the lazy would be forced to install RPM and Berkeley DB on non-Red Hat-machines in order to build an RPM package. Though it is possible to extract the gzip'ed+cpio'ed data in an RPM without using rpm.

    So, in my view, Debian has a bit of an upper hand in simplicity, from a technical standpoint, but not by much.
    --

    -
    And the Angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots! The cries of the carrots!"
  5. Re:Ah yes, packaging by dissy · · Score: 4, Informative

    > The TGZ packaging scheme (also mentioned in the article, along with RPM and DEB)
    > just... Well... Sucks.

    Not intended as an attack aginst your comment (You are fully correct, it sucks) but to clarify a point: .tgz is not really a package format. .tgz (.tar.gz, or a compressed tape-archive) is no more a binary package format than .zip is for windows.

    Slackware created a rather elegant hack at the time, of having a /package/install.sh script in the tarfile which is run with a bash shell after the files are extracted to do any command based setup, but that is it.

    Imagine if you will, a .zip file that states 'uncompress this file exactly here C:\windows\system\whatever\foo.bin '
    That is all a .tgz can do.

    This is why it supports no dependencys or checking, because its just an archive file.

    Technically speaking, this isnt a package format as much as a creative way to run a shell script after extracting some files.

    * I realize you were just replying to the articles claim that it is a package format, and from your own experences. I just wanted to explain why your experences sucked... It was more of a design flaw to use an archive as a package format, then the package format sucks.
    From an archive stand point, .zip and .tgz do great.

  6. Re:LINUX needs to tell apps where they live! by leviramsey · · Score: 5, Informative

    RPM's are relocatable (at least most, if not all of the packages Mandrake distributes are; hardcoded directories are against Mdk policy and caught by rpmlint). Just edit your .rpmmacros and set macros like %{bindir}, %{libdir}, etc.

  7. Slashdotted..... by cansecofan22 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is the link to googles cache of the site:
    CLICK HERE

    --
    "If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?"
  8. what a day to post this by joey · · Score: 5, Informative

    I (author) am currently enroute to Norway, only found out I was slashdotted in the airport. I don't really understand why they posted it today, and not some time in the past 5+ years.. Anyway, I will respond to anything worth responding to sometime later.

    --
    see shy jo