Red Hat Fedora Core 4 Test 1 Now Available

krunchyfrog writes "The first test release of Fedora Core 4 is now available from Red Hat and at distinguished mirror sites near you, and is also available in the torrent. New features in Fedora Core 4 test 1 include previews of GCC 4.0, GNOME 2.10, and KDE 3.4, as well as support for the PowerPC architecture. Please file bugs via Bugzilla, Product Fedora Core, Version fc4test1, so that they are noticed and appropriately classified. Discuss this release on fedora-test-list. -- The BitTorrent link is already there."

Comments

PPC

[BibelBiber]

Hopefully PPC works as expected. It's a shame that this platform is so poorly supported.

Re:PPC

[tabkey12]

EVen more important as Yellow Dog Linux is moving inch by inch to a subscription model for their products.

(For reference, Yellow Dog Linux is probably the biggest supplier of PPC LInux and the only supplier that sells Mac Hardware with Linux preloaded.)

Re:PPC

[commodoresloat]

All the more reason to use Debian on PPC. There is a gentoo port too these days. Personally I prefer OS X on this hardware, but there are still a few linux choices out there.

Re:PPC

[codeguy007]

As long as you want either all 32 or 64Bit libs. APT still can't handle multilib installs.

If you can handle a pure 64Bit distro debian is fine. But man I know I prefer not seeing those puzzle pieces in FireFox when I hit a flash site.

Quick RPM Version Check

[rimu guy]

Just been poring over the new RPM versions...

I see FC4 includes MySQL 4.1.10 a nice wee jump up from 3.23. Apparently RedHat are now happy with the MySQL licensing terms.

It has Eclipse 3.1, dovecot, bash 3 (with debugger), Tomcat 5 (but only 5.0, not the declared stable 5.5.7), Xen 2. And that is about all that caught my eye.

Having just been recompiling the RHEL4 sources I'm struck by how similar the versions all are. I'm presuming that rhel4 split off fc4 or vice versa a month or two back. I'd be curious how/if they co-ordinate all the patches and source code between the two different brands.

--
FC3 (now!) and RHEL4-based (soon!) VPSs

Re:Quick RPM Version Check

[tbspit]

They seem to have used a 2.0 beta version of OpenOffice.org as well (rpm has version 1.9.83).

Re:Quick RPM Version Check

[Baal Sebub]

It's already in DistroWatch. Check it out for a quick overview of package versions.

Re:Quick RPM Version Check

[Anonymous Coward]

Having just been recompiling the RHEL4 sources...

Umm, why bother when you can just grab CentOS 4.0 instead?
(or one of the other RHEL-rebuild projects like Tao or Whiteboxlinux)

Re:Quick RPM Version Check

[rimu guy]

Presuming you're not trolling...

But we will be hosting lots of servers for our customers with some RHEL4-based distro.

I want to make sure that when an update comes out from the source, that I am not wholly dependant on a middle man that not be able to or capable of a prompt update release.

I'm still testing our recompile version. If it works out, then great. Otherwise, I'm confident now that even running a non-North American Enterprise Linux Vendor version of RHEL4 I can always compile and distribute the errata udpates I need. (Well maybe except for a few kde packages, dbus and iproute which are spitting out heinous c++ errors at the mo).

Can I update FC3 to FC4 Test 1 using yum?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, can I update to FC4 test 1 using yum?
Is it even possible? Since I know everyone will advise me against this, but I just want to know ;)

Re:Can I update FC3 to FC4 Test 1 using yum?

[irchs]

Yes, just update the to the relevent fedora-release rpm and make sure the yum version of FC4T1's version, and run yum upgrade Jan

Re:Can I update FC3 to FC4 Test 1 using yum?

[irchs]

I have done it before, its really straight forward, just update fedora-release, update to corresponding version of yum, run yum upgrade, and reboot, and enjoy the new version.

I am even confident enough to do it over SSH.

Thanks

Jan

Download size question

[IDkrysez]

Why are the binary torrent images listed as being bigger than the sources?? Er, am I being thick, huh?

Re:Download size question

[lachlan76]

Source code compresses better than binary.

KDE 3.4 translations

[magi]

I hope they'll wait for KDE 3.4.1. The .1 releases have traditionally been translation releases (unless something has changed recently).

It's rather frustrating to do translations, and then notice that they are never packaged in some Linux distributions, because the packagers don't have patience to wait for the translation release. Other than English-speaking people use Linux too, you know.

Well, probably most of the translations get in time for 3.4, so the problem isn't that big.

Re:KDE 3.4 translations

[Vo0k]

Honestly, I'm glad I learned English, comparing to translations.

Sometimes the translations are okay or nearly okay. Sometimes they are terrible. And worst if you get used to "native" version and then when translation appears, keyboard shortcuts are remapped to match new words. I LOATHE when suddenly aumix stops responding to Q for Quit and I must read help to see that now it's K as "Koniec" (and not W for Wyjdz, Z for Zakoncz, O for Opusc which are synonyms).
I feel thoroughly lost in "translated GIMP". Suddenly finding an option becomes tricky. "SOTA Chrome" becomes "Krysztal" while "Cristal" is being renamed to something yet different, and only by remembering the position in menu I'm able to guess where it is. Sure it's about "getting used to", but then some things are simply translated incorrectly and guessing their meaning in your native language is just impossible...

Learn English. It pays.

Re:KDE 3.4 translations

[MaDeR]

Damn, Poles are everywhere... I fear to open fridge. ;)

Re:KDE 3.4 translations

[kiwibird]

Users: learn English. Translators: keep translating.
Not just because of the importance of keeping languages alive (which is a controversial and "feely" issue no matter what), but because there'll always be users who don't have that much comprehension of English (and it's better to have some understanding of a program than none), and it'll expand the Linux user base. All of M$' programs are translated into my native language, why should free software be behind there? And users of free programs have the choice of using the original languages, whereas users of say Office buy a version in just one language. Keep translating...

Re:KDE 3.4 translations

[MrHanky]

Learning English is generally a good thing, but well translated software certainly has its place. The examples you mention show the opposite: remapping keys and translating proper names creates confusion, especially for the bilingual user.

My impression, however, is that one reason why somewhat competent users don't like software in their native language is because they don't really see that the English words they are already used to are all metaphors, but this becomes painfully obvious -- and weird -- when they see it in their native language. But the metaphor can be important for understanding how the UI is supposed to work. A child learning both computer use and English as a foreign language at the same time might be better off learning the localized metaphor for Firefox's 'tabs' and the everyday meanings of the word 'tab' in English.

Good translators can be hard to find, though. Especially if they are supposed to work for free.

Re:KDE 3.4 translations

[anpe]

I wish I had mod points. You're right, both sides are needed.
Not just because of the importance of keeping languages alive
I just read an article that correlated the use of a local language (as opposed to english mostly) with the vitality of the local research.
That is, the more you use your own language for research the more your research field is "creative" in your country.

Re:KDE 3.4 translations

[swillden]

the more you use your own language for research the more your research field is "creative" in your country.

Interesting, but I suspect the causality runs the other direction. That is, if the study of a given field is very active in a given country there is sufficient cross-pollination of ideas nationally to make international discourse less necessary, making local language publishing more attractive.

Re:KDE 3.4 translations

[Linux_ho]

Learn English. It pays.

Are there a lot of people reading Slashdot through Babelfish or some other translation service?

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[Abasher]

Bad: The upgrade path (which forces you to burn a new CD-set for each new release), lacking multimedia support and confusing extra RPM-repos (these intertwine, since multimedia support can be added quite easily, IF you find the right repos, which doesn't cause version confilcts). Good: Rather stable, bleeding edge, large community and company backing it up.

Re:GCC Version

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what you mean by that makefile making bad code thing, but gcc 4.0 sports a new optimization infrastructure. I have been experimenting with it since October, and I found it to be far superior to 3.x. Also, the compilations times are reduced somewhat.On the whole I'm quite impressed by the improvements, though I'm not sure I'd base an operating system on a compiler which is not released yet...

Anyways, Gnome 2.10, Xen 2.0 and GCC 4.0 are quite enough reason for me to download FC4 Test 1 and try it out.

PPC Expectations?

[nurb432]

Can i expect the PPC version to run ok on my G3 Bronze?

What sort of stuff isnt going to work? ( yes, i did RTFA, didnt see what i was looking for )

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[OneSmartFellow]

There is no requirement to burn a new CD, you can easily install over HTTP, or FTP from any up to date mirror.

Hope they get more bugs sorted out before release.

[pklong]

Looking at the updates directory of core 3 there are gigs of updates in there. It didn't even install on my nVidia nForce system because of bugs in the SATA drivers in the 2.9 kernel. (It's fixed in 2.10 I believe.)

Installing the nVidia drivers (because shock horror I wanted 3D) froze then system on boot because of the rhgb red hat graphical boot thingy. The switch to udev caught me out here. Luckily I figured out what was happening and sorted it.

I also had weird sound corruption in some programs which I tracked down to arts. Turning the sound down in that sorted it but I can't find any kind of a config file, let alone a GUI application that sets a sound level which survives a reboot. I sorted it my adding an entry in rs.local.

Also why on earth don't they compile NTFS reading into the Kernel. (Captive NTFS would also be nice as an option...)

Sadly your average tech fiddler on the street would have given up with this pallava and installed Windows.

XP Installation went without a hitch and worked perfectly first time. It can even play MP3's out of the box ;)

So for all you Slashdotters out there who think a Linux install is easier than I Windows install, well it can be. Provided nothing goes wrong. Which is unlikely.

When will RPM-based distros change to .deb?

[z1d0v]

It seems that there are a lot of people starting to defend the use of the debian package for the easiness of dependencies treatment (and I'm not talking about debian folks like myself). So one might ask: will distros like Redhat/Fedora change the package manager in the future?

Since I don't use a RPM-based distro for a long time, I also feel the urge to ask: how is the dependencies treated nowdays?

Re:When will RPM-based distros change to .deb?

[davidkv]

Dependencies are handled much the same way as with .debs. You can use apt, yum, up2date or red-carpet for automatic resolving/retreiving.

I doubt that Red Hat will change to another package manager in the foreseeable future. If something needs to be implemented, they'll change the rpm application/behaviour (as has been done numerous times).

Re:When will RPM-based distros change to .deb?

[codeguy007]

Simple answer No definitely not. Though Synaptic is nice, apt cannot handle multilib dependencies like FC x86_64 provide. Yum is getting a graphical frontend (yumex) as well that though not working 100% is looking pretty good and in some ways is a lot nicer than Synaptic.

Re:When will RPM-based distros change to .deb?

[Ih8sG8s]

*.rpm or *.deb.

Both of these things describe a specification for package file format. The file format specification determines the logistic layout and conventions used in the format of a package file, like header structure, byte boundaries, supported data types for given structure data, etc. The package format is purely data structuring, and actually has very little to do with packages.

It is important for people to understand that a file format specification has no tangible effect on user experience. A lot of people are confusing tools with formats.

Maybe it was a mistake for Redhat to call both their file format specification AND their userland tool RPM. RPM has never been a good user land tool insofar as features go. Apt if a great tool, as is yum, as are others I'm sure I have not used. Please realize, Apt, yum, rpm, all of them have nothing in common with the file format specifications, ecept that they follow specification when dealing with a file format as defined by the rpm, deb, or some other format specification.

So you love Apt or yum. Great. Apt does not mean .deb. Apt can still do its normal great things using rpm formatted packages, so clearly the greatness comes from the tool, not the package specification.

Personally, I have done a lot of (work)low level work with RPM packages. The specification is a good one, and well thought out. The documentation is horrible in my opinion, but the format is sound. Sound enough for the LSB.

To answer your question, RPM package distributions will never change to deb. There is no reason to, and doing so would mean a break from the rediculously late and political LSB.

If you mean when will RPM distributions start shipping with Apt, I don't know. You can use apt-for-rpm now in exactly the same way you would with deb files.

Re:When will RPM-based distros change to .deb?

[Coryoth]

So you love Apt or yum. Great. Apt does not mean .deb. Apt can still do its normal great things using rpm formatted packages, so clearly the greatness comes from the tool, not the package specification.

The fuure of package maangers, like Smart, make this even clearer. Smart is like apt (but has better dep resolution algorithms) except it supports pluggable backends - that means currently Smart supports .deb, .rpm, and even slackware .tgz. It can manage those from apt repositories, yum repositories, urpmi repositories, re-carpet channels, whatever. You can even do a mix and match between formats and repository types if you want (though that, of course, can get messy).

The point is that package management and dependency solving are largely independent of package formats (as long as the format contains some dependency information). We can have a global package manager that works everywhere and doesn't care which package format it happens to be working with.

Jedidiah.

So....

[WindBourne]

With Linus now doing ALL of his work on the PPC, and that IBM is making a big move into Linux on PPC, do you think that it will see a massive investment in time? I do.

Re:So....

[goon america]

You forgot that the Xbox 2 is supposedly going to be PPC-based. That should spur some interest in PPC Linux!

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[northcat]

It doesn't lack multimedia support. It only lacks support for mpeg and others which are covered by software patents.

Re:RHEL4 vs Fedora Core 4 for a home server

[tux_deamon]

If you don't mind re-installing your OS every 6-12 mos, go with FC. It's always going to have the latest features. If you're looking for something with about 5 years of official support go with RHEL or an RHEL clone. For the type of service you're describing, you're probably fine with the present capabilities for some time to come.

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[davidkv]

It replaces packages through rpm. I've upgraded machines since at least RH7 up to FC3 both by CD and by using apt/yum/up2date. No user data is ever deleted.

Usually there are some small stuff that needs to be manually fixed, but it's hardly surprising since there are a few major changes in some upgrades (like SELinux, 2.6 kernel, udev and so on).

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Which, practically speaking, is the same thing.

Re:Hope they get more bugs sorted out before relea

[_randy_64]

Of course they will, that's why this is a test version. FC3 had (I think) three test releases before the final released version.

> Also why on earth don't they compile NTFS reading
> into the Kernel. (Captive NTFS would also be nice
> as an option...)

Just like with MP3 playing, I believe there are licensing/patent issues with NTFS that Fedora/RedHat just avoids by not distributing those functions.

> Sadly your average tech fiddler on the street
> would have given up with this pallava and
> installed Windows.

Test releases are really not for the "average tech fiddler on the street". If you're not ready to commit a system for testing purposes, then you/they really should stick with FC3 for now. A normal or finished user-based distro (e.g. SUSE, FC3, Mandrake..) would generally not have such problems with the install. FC4 will be the same way when it's done and not in testing.

Re:Hope they get more bugs sorted out before relea

[davidkv]

You can find answers to most of (all?) your problems here:
http://www.fedorafaq.org

Shipping NTFS and MP3 is encumbered with legal problems, that's why they're not included by default. Google can tell you that within seconds.

Re:The Big Question...

[k98sven]

The big question is, does it support MP3 out of the box (off the CD?).

No, it does not, and will not as long as the patent is in force.

Red Hat would end up being liable to pay Fraunhofer licensing for RHEL, and possibly for FC4 too.

Are you going to pay for that license? No? Then quit bitching about Red Hat and put that energy towards the real problem here: Software patents.

Re:fedora 4 and filesystems

[lbruno]

try saying:

linux xfs

at the "boot:" prompt (ditto reiserfs)

Re: yum (Was: Feedback on Fedora?)

[pp]

yum should be quite a bit faster in fc4test1, they've recently added a new xml parser (cElementTree) for the metadata which whips libxml2 ass (in fact, it's not much slower than reading plaintext in :))

Re:RHEL4 vs Fedora Core 4 for a home server

[LnxAddct]

Its important to note however that the 6-12 month reinstall cycle doesnt include a full format. Going from FC1 to FC2 certainly caused some minor problems for some folks, but since then I've seen very few complaints about being able to upgrade through yum and/or just inserting the CDs and updating. So in that regards its not too much different then a Service Pack in Windows world, except its a really really effective and useful service pack:) Also, Fedora legacy will support it for 1.5 years at a minimum and possibly more if the community sees interest in it. I'm looking really foward to this release, seems to have a ton of potential (although Core 5 seems like its going to be the big release of this year once Fedora Extras gets all figured out)
Regards,
Steve

Re:fedora 4 and filesystems

[alba7]

This is a FAQ.

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[ManikSurtani]

You also can upgrade using yum or up2date. yes, you'd need to make sure you've dloaded aind installed the rpms for the latest yum and up2date packages, but after that it should be a snap.

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[LnxAddct]

You should definitly give it a shot. It is fast, supports SELinux, and comes with all kinds of nice software, and is very stable. Yum is very easy to use and they are setting up an Extras repository for additional packages. Upgrading (despite what the above posters said) is very easy, just grab the newest version of yum and type yum upgrade, or do the recommended thing and download the new cds, and at the install screen hit "Upgrade". Very easy and works really well. Despite the 6-8 month release cycle, after the main Fedora project drops support for it, Fedora Legacy still will support it for 1.5 years and possible longer if the community is interested in providing help. I've been running FC since its very first day and it has since replaced all but one of my Debian servers (which is only still running because I dont want to reset its uptime :] )
Regards,
Steve

FC4 v Ubuntu Hoary

[lewiz]

Not a comparison but a series of questions. I installed FC3 prior to Hoary as it specifically had an Internationalization Project. I very quickly discovered that it did, but getting foreign input working (say Japanese) without running the whole thing in Japanese was not straightforward.

This didn't seem to be lost on just me either, many people seem to have written it off as a result.

Hoary wasn't instant but the process of installing the input method and adding two lines to my .gnomerc was very straightforward and almost certainly faster (better?) than sorting the same on FC3.

So, I'm curious to know how FC4 handles:

Foreign input,
Wireless support (Atheros/Madwifi),
Alternative packages (I know this should be straightforward but I had a lot of trouble trying to install the madwifi stuff without updating the rest of my system to those packages in that repository).

In fact, now that I remember... FC3's up2date was slow and very buggy. Has this been fixed?

Re:Hope they get more bugs sorted out before relea

[imemyself]

I don't think the legal issues can be that serious because pretty much every other distribution out there supports MP3 with their audio packages, and quite a few support NTFS. I think its more of RH not wanting to admit their wrong.

Regardless I'll go happily along with SuSE. It has new packages, great hardware detection and is usable as an everyday desktop.

Re:Hope they get more bugs sorted out before relea

[pklong]

"Your ignorance is astounding and complete" Thank you for the kind complement. You must be a really fun guy to be around.

"If these kinds of issues make them give up then they aren't tech fiddlers. Just common every day dime a dozen users who like to think they're tech inclinced. ie point and click monkeys."

Maybe they just have a life and have better things to do that spend hours and hours trawling the Internet downloading source, searching bug lists etc. for really simple basic problems that shouldn't exist anyway. When your installer tells you you don't have any hard disks you have a problem.

When I was installing it 2.10 wasn't out and the bug wasn't resolved. I had to revert to the deprecated driver to get it working. Later I had to edit the Kernel source, which got the SATA_NV driver working (now that would really really scare a point and click monkey) before finally 2.10 came out, which worked!

Point and click monkeys would also give up when their system just freezes up on booting as with my rhgb problem. At least with doze there is safe mode, and you can even revert to the 'last known good configuration' which I have seen get a system working again (once, I know it can leave your system in a bad way though)

"Next time you post make sure you have at least an hour of experience beyond the trained monkey stage and try to at least pretend you have half a clue. I doubt you'll fool anyone though."

Not even worth bothering to reply to this one.

Install it now on your PC with no worries: QEMU!

[Jagasian]

Windows and Linux users can install FC4 test1 on their PC right now without any worry by using the PC emulator QEMU, the free and opensource vmware! Personally, I am already using FC3, and I want to make sure that I like FC4 before I switch. I also want to help find any bugs and report them during the test releases, so that they can be fixed before FC4 goes gold.

Re:The Big Question...

[Naikrovek]

distributing GPL software is not against the GPL... if it were the GPL would have died long ago.

its not a GPL issue, its a software patent issue. even if your code is GPL, if what your software does is covered by someone else's patent, you're in patent violation. if you distribute patent-infringing software, you make yourself liable.

that is why redhat won't include mp3 support with their distros. GOSH!

Re:The Big Question...

[k98sven]

Well, how come every other linux distro doesn't have this problem. AFAIK, FC (maybe redhat) is the only distro that doesn't support MP3 out of the box. Doesn't the patent license only cover commercial use of the CODEC? Isn't personal use licensed for free? How come so many other companies give away free mp3 codecs for free?

No, the patent license covers ALL use. However, Fraunhofer says that they won't enforce it against free software. There is nothing written on that, and it is not legally binding.

SuSE and Mandrake think that's enough of a guarantee for them and obviously are willing to take that risk. Red Hat decided differently. (Which is reasonable; they're the biggest vendor, and thus the most likely target, not to mention that they're based in the litigation-happy USA.)

Stop Griping About Short Release Cycles

[theManInTheYellowHat]

By now everyone should understand what Fedora is all about. It is not a production distro, it is not meant for anything but getting the new stuff working and stable FOR a production release. Thusly the releases are going to quick and should not necessarily be an easy upgrade. The fact that you can upgrade from release to relaase if you don't break anything yourself with yum IS impressive, and requires extrodanary effort from the team.

Strong Work Fedora Crew!!! Very wonderful effort.

Isn't fedora for suckers?

[ylikone]

I mean, why would anybody want to run an OS which is just a test platform for the real, non-free product? I mean, the days of redhat being the obvious number one choice for servers is gone in my opinion... I personally wouldn't think of letting FC getting anywhere near my servers. And why would I want to pay for RHE when I can just install a great and stable product like Debian or Slackware? I don't need RH support or their upgrade hassles and I'm sure as hell not going to pay for them.

/sorry if this sounds like a troll, but I'm serious

Re:Isn't fedora for suckers?

[LnxAddct]

Actually, yes it was. And it is run on many hosting companies as a choice of operating system. I run it on many servers and it is the most stable OS I've used to date. I only have one debian server left running and that is only because it has a very high uptime and I'd hate to reboot it :) Don't make judgements about Fedora without extensively using it. And if you do test it, don't use a test release, use a stable release. Just keep an open mind. I've tried at least 15 or 16 different distriubtions pretty extensivly and I've been by far most pleased with the Fedora series. More so then the older Red Hat line, and signifcantly more pleased then with Suse and Mandrake.
Regards,
steve

Re:Isn't fedora for suckers?

[juhaz]

I mean, why would anybody want to run an OS which is just a test platform for the real, non-free product?

If it were JUST a test platform for the real, non-free product, you're right, nobody would want to run it. But since it isn't "just" but "also", I fail to see the relevance here.

You're right in that FC isn't particularly good choice for servers if updating every year or so is too often, but it is a good and quite stable desktop OS with up to date software and well integrated GNOME desktop. Should I happen to help in testing, that's because it will make FC a better desktop too, not just RHEL. If they happen to make some money out of what is basically supported-for-longer-time version of the same product, I see nothing wrong with that, quite contrary, since it helps them continue giving quite a few gtk, gnome and gcc hackers a day job and thus vastly help development, and whatever else they may be currently funding, it's a GOOD thing.

Bitching about that is just as nuts as going ballistic because Xandros or Lindows benefits from your usage of Debian, so it's basically "just a testing platform" for real, "non-free" product.

Re:Bug-free Linux distributions

[tilleyrw]

For a stable Linux distribution, you should experiment with Debian.

• New programs first enter Debian testing. Be careful using this as there may be unknown errors.
• After becoming more stable, packages move into Debian unstable. This is a fairly solid set of packages but unknown problems may exist.
• After more testing and declaration of stability, packages move to Debian stable. This distribution is slightly outdated, but extremely stable.

I run Debian unstable as my desktop and can count the number of problems I've had in the past year with my hands behind my back (i.e., none).

The best feature of Debian is the way is the fabled system update feature: apt. This simple tool allows you to update all packages on your system with one simple command; "apt-get update;apt-get upgrade". This command updates the database of available packages and then upgrades all packages on the system.

I won't even touch on how this simple tool can be extended via rules to only update certain packages, packages from a certain source, packages for a certain bit of software (i.e. the KDE desktop), etc.

If you've never used Debian, a bit of time spent learning the various features would be time well used. I've used Corel Linux, Mandrake, Red Hat, and when I tried Debian I knew I had found my Final Distro. No more "RPM-Hell" for me!

Thank you, Bob

Re:Bug-free Linux distributions

[tilleyrw]

No. Plain and simple. No.

Yum is a hack for RPMs. At their base, their very format invites dependency problems. Red Hat has simply studied this problem and found a hack that deals with most problems.

The Debian format, .deb, was designed to overcome the perceived problems with .rpm. It achieves this with stunning success.

Slashdot in french!

[ghislain_leblanc]

- Immaginez un tas de loups bioniques de ça!
- Nathalie Portman pétrifiée avec du gruau dans ses pantalons;
- http://www.SexeAvecUneChèvre.cx
- 1. Quelque chose de bête;
- 2. ???
- 3. Profits! (ceci est en fait bilingue!)

Re:Bug-free Linux distributions

[pyros]

When you install a deb, it goes out and gets any of the dependencies that you may need, RPM makes you go and find them yourself... which really isn't all that bad now, but back in the day, it was a PITA.

You're comparing a dependency resolver (apt) to a package format (RPM). The only things you can compare are DEB vs RPM (formats), dpkg vs rpm (single package installation/removal tools), and apt vs yum/up2date (dependency resolvers included with a standard install of debian and fedora, resp.). Fedora also has apt included in the official Fedora Extras repo on download.fedora.redhat.com.

I want to hear features of the DPKG format absent in the RPM format which make the job of dependency resolvers easier.