Slashdot Mirror
URPMI For Fedora Core 2
Jaroslaw Zachwieja writes "Stefan van der Eijk, the autor of Slbd - automated tool to rebuild distributions to different architectures/processors in a sanitized environment, has published set of RPMS of URPMI for Fedora Core 2. The only usage difference is that it uses hdlist instead of compressed hdlist.cz known from Mandrake. Are we one step further towards Cross-distro RPMS?"
URPMI can do pretty much everything apt can do. It is really no better or worse. Apt has more conveient commands for some things, URPMI does for others.
Same shit, different stick really.
At least for us Debian-fanatics...
alien works perfectly well for importing rpms and solaris packages... never failed on me.
(Although in some cases a little directory tweaking might be necessary, but that`s really not that much of an issue, at least IMHO)
I've only read about yum, but I've used urpmi with Mandrake for years. I can tell you about how urpmi works:
1. urpmi.addmedia -- allows a user to define new media (cdrom, ftp, nfs, etc) to be used for getting updated rpms and dependencies. Graphical tool is gurpmi.addmedia.
2. urpmi.update -- polls the media sources that are not on fixed media and downloads fresh hdlist files if available.
3. urpmi.removemedia -- samey same as addmedia, only in reverse. No graphical tool as this function is available in guprmi.addmedia utility.
4. urpmi / gurpmi -- command line / graphical utilities to download/install new/updated rpms, solving dependencies along the way.
5. edit-urpm-sources.pl -- a GUI tool available for Mandrake to edit the list of available source media.
I keep hearing about yum, apt, red-carpet, etc, and read a lot of confusion about how they compare to Mandrake's tool. I've messed with Debian's apt/get system on my testbed machine, but I keep coming back to Mandrake and urpmi. It's familiar, easy to use and I likes it.
Maybe you should read up on urpmi then.
If warns you (and requires a confirmation to continue) if a package is not signed. It warns you (and requires a confirmation to continue) if a package is signed, but you have not told urpmi to trust packages signed by the key used for the packages in the repository you are using.
That's another advantage urpmi has over all other packaging frontends I am aware of.
Can't you just use up2date for a yum gui? I did this on Fedora Core 1 & 2.
And apt-get is supported by more and more RPM based distro's, including Fedora. Dragging out apt at this point as an argument for Debian packages is a strawman - Apt haven't been tied exclusively to Debian for a long time.
Each time this discussion comes up I wait for arguments as to why Debian packages are supposedly superior, and why it matters, but so far I have yet to see any arguments presented with actual reasoning behind. I'd love to know what's so great about them... Somebody care to try to enlighten me?
None of these updaters keep a list of what is already installed on the system, they all use the rpm database, as long as the repositories you use for them all are compatible (they don't obselete each others packages etc.) then you should be fine.
Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
There is no apt vs rpm as there is no urpmi vs dkpg. it is like comparing a beer (liquid) with a beer can.
APT is a great management tool. But it is not a packaging format/tool.
APT already works with Debian, debian dkpg based distros and some RPM based distros as:
- Conectiva (they ported to rpm and support apt use)
- Mandrake (at least for the cooker)
- Redhat and Suse (thru 3rd party prepared mirrors)
An advantage of URPMI over APT is that URPMI can do small updates instead of taking the
whole package list and putting it in a big "rpm -Uvh" command line.