3 ms·
Of all the Linux package managers (sans 'frontends/wrappers'), RPM is probably the least horrible.
by 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
Of all the Linux package managers (sans 'frontends/wrappers'), RPM is probably the least horrible.
- jeremyjh 4y agoI like Arch’s pacman the best.
- encryptluks2 4y agoSame here.. I think that is what mingw or some of the initial "Windows" Linux distros is based on. A PKGCONF file would really make creating and maintaining packages a breeze.
- dTal 4y agoYou should take a look at xbps, used by Void Linux. It's extremely similar in speed and interface, but tracks shared library dependencies and so supports partial updates. xbps-src, roughly equivalent to Arch's makepkg, statelessly builds packages in a chroot which, when writing "templates" (PKGBUILDs), helps make sure you haven't missed any build dependencies simply because they happen to be installed on your system.
- nescioquid 4y agoTo be honest, my first thought was "of course the people who insist on /r/n would pick RPM". Then I realized I haven't used RPM since RedHat 6, and maybe it's gotten better in the last twenty years... I've probably just gotten inured to apt, but do you say RPM is the least horrible because the interface is more logical/convenient, or just better at managing dependencies?
- lmz 4y agoRPM is not an APT equivalent. It is a dpkg equivalent. The APT equivalent would be dnf/yum/apt-rpm.
- Maursault 4y agoSure, but why use a Linux package manager when you can use pkgsrc instead?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]