Question for comment on a remark from a professional builder about rpms

[Tony Earnshaw]

I got the following remarks as answer to a post on the Postfix list from:

Roger Marquis <***@roble.com>
PostConf Email Solutions
http://www.postconf.com/

"I don't think we want to require every Linux enthusiast to know
how to compile software. That only sends them straight to MS and
Apple.

What is actually 'ffed' up is the RPM software packaging system.
Even Windows does distribution better than RPM-based Linux. As
outlined in this thread, these two variants of DLL-hell have real
problems compared to source-based packaging like FreeBSD's, which
does the compiling for you.

That said not everyone can run FreeBSD either."

My own opinion as prof Red Hat/Fedora/CentOS sysadmin, is that the rpm
packaging system is fantastic. I build my own rpms from my own specs
(e.g. dspam, dkim-milter and many others), adapt others' specs to suit
my own needs (e.g. Cyrus SASL, Postfix, OpenLDAP) and on the newer
systems use yum for installation of al "foreign" updates, rpm for local
updates. I experience no "DLL-hell" with rpm.

Obviously I have to install Windows and NetWare stuff, Debian with debs
has been forced up my throat; I've never used FreeBSD but I've had to be
able to cope with SCO OpenServer, UnixWare and Solaris. IMNSHO rpm comes
out far and away as best of these.

What are other sysadmins' views on this? Is Roger Marquis right, wholly
or partly?

Thanks,

--Tonni

[Matthew Miller]

Post by Tony Earnshaw
What are other sysadmins' views on this? Is Roger Marquis right, wholly
or partly?

He's right in 1994.