Package managers

Comments, suggestions and questions about Linux Format magazine and the coverdiscs

Moderators: ChriThor, LXF moderators

Package managers

Postby kord » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:34 am

There was one aspect I didn't see in the package manager roundup and one conclusion I found surprising.

For the latter it was Fedora being judged better than OpenSuse. I've used Suse in the past and gave 12.1 a whirl and Yast still seems so good in terms of searching for name/info showing installed/not and general properties but it has one major advantage -

Which brings in one aspect I mentioned.

Suse's Yast allows one to choose and set a repo whether online or local from a partition or directory. No mention was made of how easy or possible this was for any of them.

In fact Suse's download pages have links to where the repos are country-wise and if one thinks somewhere closer may be better and a choice of http or ftp then it can be checked out and set up easily.

I don't know, admittedly, how much Fedora has improved its P.M. since I was all ready to switch to it a few generations ago when Fedora was the only distro that allowed a full encrypted non-cbc install, knew what should be the correct /*da disk in a multi-disk case, ran all my laptop and desk hardware with comprehensive GUI tweak for each and allowed leaving out useless fonts languages and apps at install.

It was only when installed I realised it had a "pair of Achilles' heels". No multimedia and package management.

The search was useless and there seemed to be a "catch 22" whereby you had to know the exact name of a package if you wanted one with a certain function, no point searching for the "function". And forget YUM.

Worse was to come, though whether it was a blip at that time. Because there was no way to change the repo for packages and updates I just left it as default. On running an install/update I ran 'netstat' in a terminal to see the IP addresses. Boy, what a pile. On putting them into a WHOIS facility it appeared that the main Fedora server was re-routing to other repos _but_ not all of them checked out as kosher. There were some dodgy looking locations in countries to the east of France and Germany quite unrelated to Fedora.

After a comprehensive wipe of that drive I debated whether I could use a known repo downloading from a browser and install using RPM but with probable dependency hell and no multimedia it was adios Fedora.

I'm aware of the package signing aspect of distro security but I think, for me anyway, that being able to choose a repo and know that that's the only place where the packages are coming from is important.
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:15 am

Postby Dutch_Master » Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:09 am

Welcome to Debian then ;)
LXF regular
Posts: 2592
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:49 am

Postby lok1950 » Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:16 am

re: fedora's lack of multi-media reminder that fedora is incorporated in the US an must respect all US copyright laws therefore no non-free codecs allowed period if they what to continue releasing a distro for all that there has always been a few fedora repos that are maintained by the community not part of fedora's official infrastructure that offer all the non-free packages it just don't come on the install iso.Been a fedora user since Fedora Core 3 :)

Enjoy the Choice :)
LXF regular
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:31 am
Location: Ottawa

Return to Magazine and coverdiscs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest