gpg: failed to create temporary file '/var/lib/lurker/.#lk0x573d4100.hantslug.org.uk.2327': Permission denied
gpg: keyblock resource '/var/lib/lurker/pubring.gpg': Permission denied
gpg: Signature made Mon Oct 5 17:01:10 2009 BST
gpg: using DSA key 20ACB3BE515C238D
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 04:52:00PM +0100, Stephen Rowles wrote:
> On 10/05/2009 04:30 PM, john lewis wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:11:09 +0100
> > Philip Stubbs<philip@???> wrote:
> >> Nor have I. Then it was about three years ago that I started using
> >> Debian :-)
> >>
> > nor have I, but then I stopped using rpm based systems when I dumped
> > RedHat 5.1 and moved to a distro with 'proper' dependency control based
> > on dpkg/apt and more recently aptitude.
> >
> >
>
> I realise I'm probably in the minority here as a Fedora user rather than
> using a Debian based system, and I do remember the dependency hell from
> the bad old days of RedHat systems before Yum came along.
>
> But one thing I don't understand is the differences between the actual
> package format that causes the dependency hell.
Nothing. It's all down to the tooling.
> From my understanding the thing that means you don't get dependency
> hell with .deb packages purely because of dpkg/apt (I don't run debian
> so perhaps my terminology is incorrect, I mean the debian equivalent of
> yum).
rpm <-> dpkg
yum <-> apt
The rpm/dpkg tool manages individual packages, and can cause as
much dependency hell in Debian as in Red Hat (I know, I've been
there). The yum/apt tool resolves package dependencies based on
metadata downloaded from a set of repositories, and can also download
and install sets of packages to fulfil the user's requirements.
Even with yum or apt (or, indeed, portage), it's still possible for
the system to get its knickers in a twist quite badly. It just happens
less than if you were installing individual packages manually... :)
> I don't want to start a distribution flame war but I was wondering if
> someone could explain why .deb packages don't have "dependency hell" but
> rpm's do. Especially as I've not had rpm dependency problems since yum
> came along to sort them out.
No reason at all. You're just hearing complaints from people who
gave up on it many years ago, and never used the more recent tooling.
For the record, I'm a Debian user through and through, but *I'm*
fed up of hearing these outdated complaints about Red Hat packaging,
too...
Hugo.
--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
--- "It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take ---
hold" - Hunter S Tolkien, "Fear and Loathing
in Barad D?r"
