|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
RE: [PLUG] "Distro" advocates
|
On Thu, 25 May 2000 darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> I wanted to install the openssh on a redhat 6.0 box.
>
> 1) Found the openssh rpm (took some searching)
> 2) rpm -i openssh*.rpm -- requires newer version of rpm
> 3) find more recent version of rpm
> 4) rpm -i rpm*.rpm -- requres papt & newer bzip2
> 5) find & download papt & newer bzip2
> 6) rpm -i papt*.rpm
> 7) rpm -U bzip2*.rpm
> 8) rpm -U rpm*.rpm
> 9) rpm -i openssh*.rpm
> 10) /etc/rc.d/init.d/sshd start
>
> I wanted to install the openssh server on a debian box.
>
> 1) apt-get update
> 2) apt-get install ssh
>
>
> rpm is not like apt. rpm is like dpkg. rpm & dpkg handle installing &
> uninstalling packages that you've already found and downloaded. Apt finds
> what you want, finds everything it depends on, downloads it all, installs
> it all (via dpkg), and restarts server apps if necessary.
I think I missed something important.
I wanted to do a full upgrade of a redhat box. I couldn't figure out how
to do it without:
1) downloading the full .iso of the latest release (which contians many
files I won't use & is therefor a waste of time/bandwidth)
2) rebooting the box off of the iso & figuring out how to convince it to
upgrade.
So as far as I know, you can only do an automated full upgrade once every
major release, by downloading the latest .iso.
To do a full upgrade of a debian box:
1) apt-get update
2) apt-get dist-upgrade
#1 Updates the index of available packages
#2 Downloads current versions of all packages you have installed,
everything they depend on, installs them, and restarts any necessary
services.
So with Debian, if you're updating off the unstable tree, you can get
daily updates. If you're running stable, you have the same
once-per-release problem.
I do this regularly over a 33.6 (non-dedicated) dialup (unstable tree).
With redhat, before I got into debian, I was in the habbit of doing a full
reinstall every few major releases.
When I got into debian and found apt, I thought I would never have to
reinstall on that box again. The only reason that hasn't been the case so
far was due to a power supply failure induced hard drive crash.
On Thu, 25 May 2000, Jason Costomiris wrote:
> Debian: Rock solid stability. As a package management tool, I prefer
> dpkg to rpm. dpkg offers more flexibility, such as diversions,
> and of course the whole integration with apt thing too. The
> distro is the most stable I've seen. The problem is that with
> that stability comes rigidity. While Debian was the first
> distro to ship kernel 2.0, they've fallen WAY behind with their
> releases. Debian has not yet shipped a release containing
> glibc 2.1 or higher. 2.1.3 is in the "frozen" distribution,
> which will ship some day, but no releases with a recent glibc.
You get rigidity or instability. I, personally, opt for instability. I
regularly update to the latest debian unstable tree. I admit to not
keeping extreemly up to date with what is available in source, but
unstable seems to stay pretty recent.
If I were running debian on a production box, I'd do a full stable
install, and for anything I needed more recent, I'd switch apt to the
unstable tree of the online archives & update those individual packages
(apt-get install package1 package2 etc).
But I agree that this is a problem with debian. In addition to its stable
(rarely upgraded, only when there are new releases) tree and unstable
(well, unstable (but not that bad)) trees, it nees a "test" or something
-- somewhere in between, that combines the stability of stable, and the
updating of unstable.
On Thu, 25 May 2000, Michael Leone wrote:
> Consider - once you've got everything you want running on this machine
> (Samba/NFS server, gateway/firewall), I doubt you'll be doing too much
> fooling with it afterwards. Some updating, sure; installing some security
> fixes, or whatever. But you're not going to be actualling USING the machine
> as a workstation often enough that the Debian package-management would gain
> you anything. It's Linux; mostly you just let it sit and do it's work
> without too much intervention required on your part. I presume, anyway.
RedHat: Some day, you *will* need to download & burn or buy a full RedHat
CD and reboot the box off of it, either to do a full upgrade, or,
if you wait too long, to do a full reinstall.
Debian: Never again.
I've also felt like Debian's upgrade process is more reliable than
RedHat's. This could be for a few reasons:
1) For Debian, regular upgrades are a part of its daily life, therefore
package maintainers & everybody involved pays more attention to making
upgrades work, and gets much more opportunity to debug the process.
2) I am more experinced with debugging debian upgrades, because it is part
of my daily life.
___________________
www.ChaosReigns.com
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://plug.nothinbut.net
Announcements - http://lists.nothinbut.net/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.nothinbut.net/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|