Sender: root AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <37404E8F.4DC09A1@inti.gov.ar>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 14:14:55 -0300
From: salvador <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i686)
X-Accept-Language: es-AR, en, es
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: rpm Home Page [Was: DSM/scripting spec, version 0.1]
References: <199905161721 DOT NAA11293 AT mccoy2 DOT ECE DOT McGill DOT CA> <373F18AF DOT E933DD61 AT softhome DOT net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> Alain Magloire wrote:
> > I did not follow this thread, but did you look at the way other distributions
> > implement there package installer ?  Debian for example use dpkg.
>
> I use Slackware. It has some kind of package management too, but very
> simple - "install" means unextract tar.gz to root directory and run
> install script provided by package. I've heard many times that Slackware
> is "upgrade not friendly".
>

Debian packages have all the informartion about dependencies (and much more, like
pre/post install script, documentation, etc) included in the file. And dpkg (which
es command line program like rpm) is the one in charge of verifying the
dependencies.
The concept exposed in these threads about packages composed by multiple files
(like Emacs) is solved with dependencies. The system works *very* well.

SET