Perche' (debian) apt si fuma (feebsd/gentoo) port(age)

[ago]

I can never really understand why FreeBSD ports is better than Debian's APT. Perhaps it's only because they look at "package installation" as the only use for these tools, whereas I use these tools for "package management". Everything comes down to the packagers who make and maintain the packages and the quality of the tools used to make and maintain the packages. I've used FreeBSD, Gentoo, and finally Debian for servers and desktops. Based on my experience APT is a more elegant solution to package management compared to FreeBSD Ports and Gentoo Portage for the following reasons:

Package Building

Although building Debian packages can be a bit overwhelming especially for newcomers, it really shines especially if you have installed debhelper, dh-make, dbs, dpatch, and lintian. What's really great about APT is the automatic runtime dependency resolution prior to packaging the final debs. After building the package and before it gets packed into a deb, a dependency checker is run through it and it will automatically figure out the runtime dependencies for you. On FreeBSD Ports and Gentoo Portage, you have to figure out and specify runtime dependencies yourself.

The "Dusty Deck" Problem

When I install a package using ports or emerge, it will also install the dependencies. But most of the time you will essentially be installing from source (and yes I am aware that Ports and Portage also have pre-built packages). When you do that, Ports and Portage will install and build the build-time dependencies of the package you are installing. Now, that's fine if those build-time dependencies are also needed at run-time. But some dependencies are only used at build-time and will never be used again until you upgrade the packages that depend on them. You can decide to remove them after build time, but then when you update the package they will be downloaded, rebuilt, and installed again. You eventually grow tired of this cycle that you just leave these build-time only packages and then they continue to accumulate on your disk mostly wasting space.

This is probably the reason why there are "developer" packages for libraries that contain only the header files and the link libraries. Once you're done with building, you can uninstall the developer package. Try doing that under Ports or Portage. Oh, wait! You can't. The runtime and build-time dependencies are all in one package.

Package Uninstallation

Now this is where Ports and Portage, IMHO, really suck. When I uninstall a package from my system I want it gone. apt-get remove --purge and a properly packaged deb will do that for you. Ports and Portage will leave "package cruft" on your system. "Package cruft" can be anything from stale config files to build-time dependecy packages. You will have to track and remove those things manually.

I know these three points can be resolved on both Ports and Portage if the packages are done correctly. This is where APT has an advantage over Ports and Portage: being able to make a proper package. On Debian, with the tools I mentioned above installed, a package maintainer's life is greatly simplified.

Ports (and Portage) does Rock, but only if all you ever care about is package installation and not package management (package building, installation and uninstallation).

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...id=190&tid=218

[ago]

Per la proprieta' transitiva apt si fuma anche rpm in ogni forma e salsa, e, sempre per la proprieta' transitiva, qualsiasi programma di installazione/patching di windows (setup-exe, windows update, add-remove prgrams...)

[ago]

Per spezzare una lancia in favore di freebsd/gentoo, ricordo che tali sistemi sono migliori quando si voglia compilare tutto il sistema. Anche con apt e' possibile compilare "a mano", ma la cosa e' meno elegante (bisogna editare dei files invece che usare le flags).

Aggiungo pero' che, contrariamente a quanto sotenuto da molti fans di gentoo, la compilazione "manuale", seppur un'ottima esperienza didattica, migliora solo in maniera LIMITATA le prestazioni del pc, se non in circostanze particolari... Anzi, sbagliando i flags si possono spesso peggiorare le cose... Inoltre per compilare tutto (e ricompilare ad ogni update) ci vogliono giorni, e l'hd viene intasato con spazzatura che bisogna periodicamente rimuovere...

Ovviamente ai fans di port(age) che hanno passato ore ed ore a compilare piace pensare che il loro sistema sia MOLTO piu' veloce... Ma cosi' non e', e lo dice uno che ha usato gentoo per parecchio...

Per velocizzare linux molto meglio (= meno tempo e fatica e migliori risultati) seguire i seguenti consigli http://www.politicaonline.net/forum/...hreadid=199043

[ago]

Conclusione: per sistemi desktop "normali" molto meglio usare apt, ovvero debian, ovvero ubuntu... Se avete a disposizione tempo, cpu e pazienza e volete capire come funzionano le cose, l'installazione di Gentoo e' un'ottima esperienza (gentoo ha il miglior manuale in circolazione).