rpms and managers

[YoshiroShin]

Him:
I'm well aware that rpm package managers are better than they were 5 years ago. I just don't care to use them because I don't like the way rpm works re: capabilities. It's a nice idea in theory but in practice, you get situations like the contrived example.

@RedDwarf: I know rpm does the right thing and stops. So would dpkg (only after attempting to install. I agree, not the greatest idea). It's the way I have to navigate among the options that I don't agree with. Many times I was presented with a couple of options and chose the option that provided the capability I needed only to find out that it conflicted with some other random package. If it's gonna conflict at some point, why offer it? When I'm using standard repos, things like this shouldn't happen. I fully understand that as soon as I go and install random rpms not in the repo I'm risking dependency resolution hell.

@Akoellh: I fully understand that rpm and deb are package formats and that urpmi/yast/synaptic/apt are managers. I am not confusing the 2. I have >6 months experience with both of the formats and their managers. I have used dpkg and I have used rpm. I have also used yast and synaptic. I know the difference.
--
I don't think his mind will be changed anyway. If he prefers deb then so be it I guess. I myself don't really care as long as it handles what it's supposed to handle well.

[RedDwarf]

Him:
I'm well aware that rpm package managers are better than they were 5 years ago. I just don't care to use them because I don't like the way rpm works re: capabilities. It's a nice idea in theory but in practice, you get situations like the contrived example.

Here he is just saying the same than in

tl;dr rpm allows reqs specified as pkgs or provides (a capability, file, etc) whereas deb only allows pkgs.

but with other words. And I already answered that....
I think I made it perfectly clear that "the way rpm works re: capabilities" is **EXACTLY** the same than "the way deb works re: capabilities". I gave a pretty link (Debian Policy Manual - Declaring relationships between packages)... he will need to *read* if he wants to talk about "theory".

@RedDwarf: I know rpm does the right thing and stops. So would dpkg (only after attempting to install. I agree, not the greatest idea). It's the way I have to navigate among the options that I don't agree with. Many times I was presented with a couple of options and chose the option that provided the capability I needed only to find out that it conflicted with some other random package. If it's gonna conflict at some point, why offer it? When I'm using standard repos, things like this shouldn't happen. I fully understand that as soon as I go and install random rpms not in the repo I'm risking dependency resolution hell.

This part is really soooo wrong...

• "the way I have to navigate among the options" is **obviously** a manager topic, not a RPM one. And how he changed from a root deep RPM philosophical problem to a cosmetic one???
• "If it's gonna conflict at some point, why offer it?"?? The list of offered options is again, obviously, manager dependent. And no, I don't think any manager will do such a thing.
• What options?? In the example he gave there are only two options. When he tries to install package D the manager will ask if he really wants to, even if that will require to remove package C, or if he wants to cancel the installation of package D. "Do you really want to install D?" Yes or no, that's the only question the manager will ask.

I don't think his mind will be changed anyway. If he prefers deb then so be it I guess. I myself don't really care as long as it handles what it's supposed to handle well.

But that's not OK. At this point the situation is SOOOOO CLEAR that to continue defending his position can only be explained with some kind of learning disability (I'm very serious here) that perhaps could be treated.
All his argument is based in two proven false assertions:

rpm allows reqs specified as pkgs or provides (a capability, file, etc) whereas deb only allows pkgs.

and

The manager won't let 2 usb-hotplug pkgs be installed

[YoshiroShin]

Alrighty then. I think I've learned about all I want to learn from this (at least this way anyway). If he wants to respond I'll tell him to do it himself. I don't really feel that great keeping this argument going because now it's gotten to a "he's wrong", "no, he's wrong" thing and regardless of who's right, people are beginning to have their nerves tested.

Well thank you very much guys for taking the time two put in your two cents for the topic. I've learnt a bit and that's primarily what I wanted. Unless anyone actually wants to continue I think that'll be all. Take it easy.

[FlameBait]

I kind of liked urpmi i and urpm e but currently the distro that really used that is dead to me.

A package is a package. A manager is a manager. Some suck some don't and some just keep getting better/

I use YAST quite happily zypper not so much. apt and synaptic as necessary. I find apt easier to use but am not a GNU zealot so I don't use Debian much.

[RedDwarf]

because now it's gotten to a "he's wrong", "no, he's wrong" thing and regardless of who's right

I didn't just said "he's wrong". I gave a link to Debian official docs to disprove his first assertion and showed a real example in a real system to disprove the second one.

Either the Debian docs and the reality is wrong or he is wrong. Who's right is beyond question.