Slashdot Mirror


Intel Switches From Ubuntu To Fedora For Mobile Linux

An anonymous reader writes "According to a report on heise, Intel is switching from using Ubuntu to the Fedora Project for the second version of the Intel supported Mobile & Internet Linux Project Moblin, citing a desire to use RPM package management." So far, of the various subnotebooks I've been glancing at over shoulders at OSCON, though, most of the ones with an easily identified operating system seem to be running Ubuntu.

16 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, the fools... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Informative

    citing a desire to use RPM package management

    There might be valid reasons to pick Fedora instead of Debian based systems, but package management is not one of them. Debian's package management is absolutely superior compared to everything else that I know about out there.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:Oh, the fools... by interiot · · Score: 2, Informative

      it will determine that certtool is provided by gnutls-utils and install that package. IIRC, apt-get can't do that.

      apt-file search path/to/myfile

    2. Re:Oh, the fools... by MSG · · Score: 2, Informative

      https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01082.html

      Eric was never forthcoming about what he did to break the system, which is no surprise because it was clearly an idiot thing to do.

      If he had a problem with a repository, it's because he was trying to use a repository that wasn't compatible with Fedora. libcom_err was and is part of e2fsprogs-libs.

      Absent any better proof than is available, I'll maintain that rpm is not at fault, and neither is Red Hat or Fedora. Eric was doing something stupid, and he ignored the system's warning that he was going to break the system. When he broke it, it was *his* fault, and his alone.

    3. Re:Oh, the fools... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depends, auto-apt will actually suggest the package to install just by typeing in the command, or you can configure it to search and install the package you need to run that command the first time you try to run it.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:Oh, the fools... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can trivially look for packages using either "apt-cache search whatever-you-want", or "apt-file search whatever-file-you-want". Personally, I don't like Yum trying to guess what I mean, and I really don't like it's searching ability.

      I can't remember exactly the command required, but it's quite possible to install a package from the filesystem, and have apt automatically download and install it's dependencies. Whatever GUI tool Ubuntu ships with does it, for example.

      Debian packages are not built by hand. You can build them by hand, but all packages in Debian's repository are built that way. That's why you can rebuild any package from source using apt-build. That ability has been in there for years, quite possibly since the .deb package format was developed.

      All of Debian's built tools are, of course, open source and included in Debian.

    5. Re:Oh, the fools... by calc · · Score: 2, Informative

      The base rpm command can tell you what package a file belongs to, what a package provides, what it requires, _even when it is not installed_. Not one Debian command can do that. Several, separately, but not one.

      dpkg does all of that:

      what package a file belongs to
      dpkg -S (filename)

      what a package provides
      dpkg -L (packagename)

      if you mean what files it provides otherwise package provides are seen via

      dpkg -p (packagename)

      what it requires

      dpkg -p (packagename)

      _even when it is not installed_

      dpkg -l (packagename)

      --

      apt-file can give individual file contents information on not installed packages, but dpkg doesn't do this by default since it would be a waste of bandwidth to actually download that stuff automatically all the time.

      ==

      The base RPM packaging can skip provides/requires (Autoreqprov: no). Debs cannot do that.

      As mentioned by someone else already:

      dpkg -i --force-nodep --force-all

      ==

      The base RPM packaging can bundle source packages, complete. Debs cannot do that: you must download patches separately. They can even bundle source packages without the actual sources (Nosrc). Debs cannot do that.

      Debs most certainly can bundle them complete, they do not do so by policy. Debs could do a nosrc equivalent but do not do so by policy again. It's not a limitation of the packaging system. Policy in Debian is very strong and so some of the things you seem to think can't be done are not done strictly due to policy reasons.

  2. yum by thule · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ever since yum became part of the standard Redhat distro, I have had almost zero trouble with rpm packages. With the repository aware wrapper on top of rpm, dependencies are resolved automatically, just like apt. With the main repository getting larger and larger, there is less reason to use 3rd party repositories that could lend to dependency issues. The main reason to use a 3rd party repository is to add support for proprietary codecs and drivers.

    There is even talk of removing the rpm command entirely so that all package management goes through yum.

  3. Re:Problems... by Shimdaddy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Stop it. This is a total troll and is 100% FUD. Fedora isn't a "trial" version at all -- it's a bleeding edge distro made for people who don't need commercial-grade support for their distro, but they want a Red Hat based system. Plus, Fedora isn't just "usable," it's awesome. Far from being a collection of bits and pieces, it's a coherent, organized collection of software -- in short, it's everything you expect a distro to be. You should check out: This and this.

  4. Re:Intellectual property issue by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Informative

    The package metadata does not contain the license beyond whether it's considered free or non-free, however every package is required to include usr/share/doc/[packagename]/copyright with the text of the license.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  5. Wrong reason by armanox · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually it has nothing to do with RPM vs Deb. It's apt vs yum. Install apt-rpm in Fedora and see how fast you can install stuff (Actually, it has to do with yum updating the package lists every run vs apt just doing it with apt-get update).

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  6. FUD abound by Junta · · Score: 1, Informative

    Now, I'll preface this with a disclaimer that I avoid Fedora generally. I got reminded of why during a recent attempt to use it and follow it, it really punishes the users with inconsistant updates even after release.

    That said, RPM dependencies are no more convoluted than deb dependencies. The difference is that originally, RH distros had only the rpm command and debian out of the gate recognized the need for both dpkg *and* apt. RPM distributions each have at least one repository management strategy now (YaST, yum, etc etc). So dependency hell is not one of their worst problems (though I do prefer some apt defaults more than yum, I won't say yum isn't up to the task).

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  7. Re:Educate me wrt to Debians package management by AllIGotWasThisNick · · Score: 2, Informative

    --dist-upgrade-mode is for upgrading to the next release of your distro, such as for ff2->ff3 (via eg ubuntu gutsy->intrepid).

    You're right that "upgrade" only upgrades to the latest version available for your distro. Some distros offer multiple independent versions within one distro (eg) both Python2.5 and Python2.4. In that case:

    $ sudo apt-get install firefox3

    I still can't see this as any reason to switch from one package manager to another. :(

  8. rpm -qa --queryformat "%{NAME}\t%{LICENSE}\n" by thule · · Score: 4, Informative

    I *think* what Intel wants is this command:

    rpm -qa --queryformat "%{NAME}\t%{LICENSE}\n"

    I didn't know that .deb didn't support this. Can anyone provide a similar dpkg command?

  9. Re:rpm -qa --queryformat "%{NAME}\t%{LICENSE}\n" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    There really isn't one. Most Debian packages come from main and are FOSS, so the licensing isn't a big deal. The package does contain /usr/share/doc/$package/COPYRIGHT by policy but that leaves the human grepping around. It would be trivial enough for the dpkg folk to add it but it has not been an issue up to now.

  10. Mandriva has a superior RPM implementation by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1, Informative

    Fedora's RPM system is an absolute disorganized nightmare when it comes to RPM. Now Mandriva has done a few things right. They are disciplined about how they setup RPMs so you don't get dependancy Hell. Also. urpmi has far superior package deployment options when compared to yum.

    For example. urpmi can do parallel installations of Authorized packages using SSH, and Kerberos simultaniously. Yum cannot. You have to setup your own mirror. urpmi can use LDAP to standardize the synthesis or hdlist. Yum cannot.

    I really wish there were more advancements in this arena.

  11. Re:*NOT* exactly by calc · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most of the reason Debian is so good is due to their very strict policy and review of packages before being allowed into the repository. apt-get is just icing on the cake.