Skip to main content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Post

Favourite package management?

Ports/Compiling from source/Portage...
33% (4 votes)
RPM, urpmi...
17% (2 votes)
APT/.deb
33% (4 votes)
Pacman (on Arch)
17% (2 votes)
Total votes: 12

Comments

 

Ok, so another "What is your favourite..." post again, but they do no harm Smiling

So, whats your favorite, and why, remember, no flaming Smiling

Mine is compiling from source/ports/portage Smiling

Nice 'n fast

(If there is more, I will try and edit the poll)

I rather like portage, since for one you get to see a lot of interesting output, it's not unnervingly fast like apt-get (yes, speed is the reason I don't like apt-get), and the way it's compiled for my system.

I voted APT just for the heck of it, but in truth I don't know which would I choose as my favourite. One that isn't mentioned in the poll and that I use now is pacman, but then in Arch GNU/Linux in which pacman is natively used there is also aurbuild and ABS.

Pacman is much like APT on debian while aurbuild is much like portage on gentoo, so I kind of have the best of both worlds.

ABS is what I think is used by aurbuild and can also be used manually to make PKGBUILD files which are much like gentoo's ebuilds containing info necessary to build packages from source.

All in all it's a nice ecosystem here on Arch when it comes to software management and I think that would be my real favourite. Smiling

 

ARgh, how could I forget pacman, can someone edit it or me, because it seems I cant Sad

 

I'm fond of apt-get (as a frontend to dpkg, not rpm) and compiling, ports, portage, whatever.

 

ooh, it seems a lot of people prefer apt, to anything else, Now I would think that not compiling would eventually make your PC a lot slower, am i right or wrong?

Carry on Laughing out loud

"onlinebacon" wrote:

Now I would think that not compiling would eventually make your PC a lot slower, am i right or wrong?

I wouldn't say alot slower. In most cases it probably can't even be recognized. I haven't actually ran a fully source-based system yet to compare, but the general opinion from what I heard/read seems to be that the difference isn't all that noticable, at least not so drastic to justify waiting long compilations to finish, to some people. Some prefer that for that little extra speed, but to each his own. Smiling

Btw, I added the pacman option, though it might be a bit too late for it Puzzled

There is no point using a source based package manager unless it's configured properly for the machine. Once configured properly it'll run faster than binaries compiled to either the i686 or i368 proccesors. But since today's compters are so powerful, one will not notice much difference imo between a binary and source based distro on a new machine, but I think you might notice a difference on the older machines, but the con to this pro is that compiling on things like 300MHz PII's takes AGES.

dylunio

I use the source. It's just better that way.

In any case it seems to be a trade-off and ultimately once preference decides. To some the pros of source out weigh the cons while for others it is the other way around and they use binary.

I like having both options open in my distro, but when it comes down to it I often just want the thing I need to get installed as soon as possible which is why I often prefer binary. Since I'm running a farily strong machine I don't have so much of a speed problem. All I need is a bit more RAM. Smiling

If I want something built from source for any reason on Arch I can just use aurbuild or ABS..

 

Fair enough, seems people prefer to go for ease and speed of installation, cool

I use pacman and also compile from source.

I can see portage/ports being package management; but not compiling from source alone. Package management should do just that, manage the installation by providing dependencies, catching possible issues, etc. Plain old source compiling doesn't do any of that.

Maybe I'm being a bit picky, but it just struck me.

 

No, compiling from source is package management because it is you who becomes the package manager, the one who goes and finds all the deps

I personalyl just use what ever is there. Normally I get the application in source, and any deps that crop up during configure, i then go and use what every package manager is there.

I did like portage tho, it has a nice big and up to date list of applications in its repo's.
I also kinda like Yum

 

Cool, seems that we llike a broad range of different package management apps, At the minute, on sourcemage I am using Sorcery or Cast or somethng like that :s Seems to be a lot like portage but in BASH, which is cool.

I've read about sourcemage. Sounds very interesting. I should probably give it a try sometime although I am not very into that dark magic "witchcraft" style of spells, casts and such. Sticking out tongue

Heh, but many techies are. If what you're doing looks like magic to "normal" people, why not accept the coolness?

Quote:

Curse on you, wizard, before you recurse on me.

Anyone who knows from which program that quote is gets some geek points from me. Don't use a search engine!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.