Alan Lord wrote: > Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: >> 2008/3/3, Alan Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> * PM (This is very a technical issue and an emotive one, probably one of >>> the most important too as it may affect everything that follows in LFS-NG) >> I am very surprised the nobody replied to my mail with the subject >> "RPM: proof of concept". > <snip /> > > Personally, it's a bit over my head, sorry. ;-). Also, I have a purely > emotional bias against RPM. Give me anything else but RPM. (And don't > ask me why... I tried Redhat some time ago and didn't like RPM. >
Alex, i intended to reply to your earlier thread, but this now seems to be a more appropriate location. Like Alan, i have a (possibly unjustified) prejudice against RPM, based in my case on a dislike of RedHat itself rather than it's PM. Having browsed the spec-files you generously provided, it appears to use (at least on the front-end) a similar approach to 'portage', with which i'm very familiar, & also to what little i've seen of 'pacman'. I'm therefore deducing that it's the back-end of the system that should have most bearing when it comes to deciding upon a preferred PM for LFS, a subject to which i'm wholly unqualified to contribute. If these discussions culminate in a consensus opinion that one PM is best suited to LFS, i will start using it, & trust the collective wisdom that reached this conclusion... ...However, i can't help thinking that the emotion-based responses voiced thus far might be indicative of a general trend, & this could impact LFS as a whole if RPM was settled upon - it might be unfair, but it's also worth bearing in mind, i believe. taipan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
