On 10/26/07, Isaac Serafino <i@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thank you, that sounds very helpful, but, unfortunately, Conary > doesn't sound like a viable replacement to RPM in Fedora yet, does it? > > On 10/26/07, Bill Rugolsky Jr. <brugolsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:37:15PM +0930, Tim wrote: > > > On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 17:58 -0500, Isaac Serafino wrote: > > > > Is there any way to get and use Fedora without the RPM program or any > > > > RPM packages, for instance, using an alternative package manager, or > > > > compiling everything from the source? > > > > > > I'd have to wonder why you'd want to do that. You might as well do > > > Linux from scratch, or pick on of the other smaller distros which don't > > > use a package manager. > > > > One would like to do that because Fedora's innovation, engineering, and > > QA are very valuable, but RPM [or rather, its "coding in assembly" > approach > > used in practice] is obsolete and not suitable in a networked world with > > distributed filesystems, virtualization, and lots of other configuration > > management headache multipliers. It is possible to hack most RPM specs > > to operate at a much higher level using macros, but the amount of work > > involved is such that converting to a different mechanism is probably > > just slightly more work. > > > > The whole discussion recently regarding multilib and the pain of creating > > separate *-libs subpackaging just makes me laugh/cry: with rPath Conary, > > the packaging system separates tagging, policy, and mechanism. > Executables, > > shared libraries, and configuration files can all be treated differently > > *and* the policy is readily extensible / hookable. [Conary is not without > > its own warts, but what is?] > > > > There has been work done in Conary to extract tarballs and patches from > SRPMS, > > > > http://wiki.rpath.com/wiki/Conary:RPM_Package_Recipe > > > > but I don't know of a mechanism for automatically converting a substantial > > fraction of spec files to Conary recipe format. In principle, it is > > possible to process the spec file to determine things like patch > application > > order, as is done in quilt setup: > > > > http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/PatchingRPMsWithQuilt > > > > "Vanilla" rpm spec scripts that use %configure, %makeinstall, etc., should > > be rather trivial to convert. > > > > Regards, > > > > Bill Rugolsky > > > > > -- > > isAAc4given > findmercy.com > Let the Lord be magnified! > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > rpm it's heart of fedora. rpm install packages and control depnedencies, but it doesn't resolve them! Dependency resolution it's a part of yum function.
