17 Sep
2020
17 Sep
'20
4:08 p.m.
On Thursday 17 September 2020 10:31:15 am Slávek Banko via tde-users wrote:
Once upon a time I used RedHat Linux (please do not confuse it with the
current RHEL). Starting with version 5.0 and ending with version 7.3. At
the time I was used to building and maintaining my own RPM packages.
Although the creation of the source package was at first glance easier than
for deb packages, building binary packages was always a big pain. Towards
the end I was happy when I could use apt-get for RPM.
I've been using Debian since version 3.0 and when I learned how to build
packages and use pbuilder, it was a huge relief and much easier work than
ever before with RPM. Some time ago I switched from pbuilder to schroot +
sbuild, but the principle remains the same and just as simple.
Conversely, when I needed to solve some problem with building an RPM
package, I tried to find some tool comparable to pbuilder (I found a
mock), but there was a lot of pain in the RPM package management tools.
From my point of view, the state is so unfinished, one project replaces
the other, so in the final they are all constantly "in development". I
considered the "most perfect" when I found instructions for building
"dnf"
from the source code, which stated to use "dnf build dnf".
Thanks Slávek!
You answered my PS before I asked it :)
In fact, I did
not understand how anything "enterprise" can be based on such an unstable
state of basic package management tools.
This I can probably answer for you. My best guess from a business standpoint.
It’s intentional. Red Hat must have very well built internal tools and they
are not going to share them. They are also almost guaranteed to be ‘black
box’ to the regular Red Hat employee needing to create an RPM. E.g. they are
most likely treated like Coca-Cola’s Coke formula, kept in a vault...
Anything found in the ‘wild’ is user built, and based upon what you’ve said
basically quickly abandoned?
Best,
Michael