🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉

Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!

package managers

Started by
4 comments, last by ImperfectFreak 17 years, 8 months ago
I think the package manager delivered with a distro is a pretty important aspect of it, since it basically is a main way for installing and removing software from the system. I've got only experience with one distro, and that is Archlinux, which has a package manager called "pacman". When I'm on the ##linux channel on freenode and mention I use Archlinux, they often say that my distro sucks. However it works perfectly for me, and I don't really feel like replacing something that works and allows me to always have to most recent versions of all software and desktop managers. I've never worked a lot with any other distro, and I don't know a lot about their package managers, if they have any. So my question is: What sort of system or package manager to the major distros use for getting & uninstalling software? How do the different distros compare to each other in this aspect? If you know pacman of Archlinux: how does it compare to those of other distros?
Advertisement
I don't know much about ArchLinux, so I can't comment.

As for the comments you found in IRC, all I can say is, don't put faith in IRC fanboys' comments.

I have used two of the major distributions' package management systems: Redhat-based RPM (and yum for management) and Debian-based DEB (and apt for management).

In Redhat (and Fedora, from what I understand, though I haven't used RH since v9), you were responsible for managing versions and resolving conflicts between packages. Tools like yum made this easier, by managing the package dependency for you.

In Debian (and specifically in Ubuntu, of which I have experience), the same sort of system is set up. The apt suite of utilities manages downloading, updating from repositories, and performing system-wide updates.

I haven't compared the two personally, but I prefer Ubuntu's package management system, as it makes updates and new installations very simple. I highly recommend it, if you're thinking of getting into a new distribution and want to excel at productivity.

Cheers,
- m³
More about Debian/Ubuntu: They both use apt, which is a really nice command-line utility built around dpkg. There are also a few very good GUI front-ends. I mainly use Synaptic which is quite powerfull and exposes a lot to the user. Ubuntu also has a second, newbie friendly package manager. It's simply called "Install and remove applications" (according to the docs). There's also Aptitude which has the nice feature that it will also remove obsolete dependencies. Very usefull if you (un)install a lot of applications. The downside of Aptitude is that you have to use it from the start, or it can't track obsolete dependencies anymore.

Aside from that I only used Yast2 on a Suse 9.3 box. It's a pretty nice curses-based installer. It does much more than manage packages though. It takes care of your entire use system.

<hr />
Sander Marechal<small>[Lone Wolves][Hearts for GNOME][E-mail][Forum FAQ]</small>

I too use Arch Linux. Unless people can justify why they think pacman sucks, just ignore them.

If there's nothing wrong with Arch, why bother looking for a replacement? [Actually, I don't think there's anything wrong looking at different distributions, I do it all the time]

There are unofficial replacements for pacman but IMO pacman is fine.

While you're on Freenode, you should check out #archlinux.

I've used quite a few package managers and to be honest, I think they're all similar: they each do their jobs well.

I think people think Arch Linux sucks because it's about 25th in DistroWatch... I don't care, I've tried all the top 10 distributions (and others) and definately prefer Arch (well, Slackware was a close second).
Quote: Original post by Lode
When I'm on the ##linux channel on freenode and mention I use Archlinux, they often say that my distro sucks.

This is the first thing to learn about the Linux community -- whenever you say "I use <insert anything here>" then there is always at least one person to say "Your <anything> sucks". Ignore it.

I have used pacman on Arch, apt on Ubuntu/Debian, Yast on Suse, and emerge on Gentoo.

Each has it's benefits, as far as I can tell apt has the ability to download the source code and build, but usually just gets the binaries. Pacman only gets binaries, and emerge only gets the source.

emerge - Builds the best binary for your system, takes forever.
pacman - Takes any old binary, is very quick.
apt - Probably my favorite, is a mix of the two.

I like arch as a distro the most though, don't base too much on the package manager.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement