From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/35774 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Florian Weimer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Quimby Upgrade Date: 13 Apr 2001 00:09:24 +0200 Message-ID: <87r8yxahyj.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> References: <20010410162812.7343.qmail@nightshade.la.mastaler.com> <87g0fg56fb.fsf@inanna.rimspace.net> <20010411052354.D46053@kens.com> <20010412214301.13340.qmail@nightshade.acl.lanl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035171460 4826 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:37:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:37:40 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 29256 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2001 22:00:56 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 29251 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2001 22:00:56 -0000 Original-Received: from mail.s.netic.de (HELO mail.netic.de) (212.9.160.11) by gnus.org with SMTP; 12 Apr 2001 22:00:56 -0000 Original-Received: by mail.netic.de (Smail3.2.0.111/mail.s.netic.de) via LF.net GmbH Internet Services via remoteip 212.9.163.11 via remotehost mail.enyo.de with esmtp for mail.gnus.org id m14np97-001WzeC; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:00:57 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.2] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 14np4e-0004uZ-00 for ding@gnus.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:56:20 +0200 Original-Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 14npHI-00018V-00 for ding@gnus.org; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:09:24 +0200 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: <20010412214301.13340.qmail@nightshade.acl.lanl.gov> (jason-dated-321e0a263c46f421@mastaler.com's message of "12 Apr 2001 21:43:01 -0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090001 (Oort Gnus v0.01) Emacs/20.7 Original-Lines: 14 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:35774 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:35774 jason-dated-321e0a263c46f421@mastaler.com writes: > Harry Putnam writes: > > > Man that is lame compared to the power of rpm commands. You can't > > be serious about offering those limp pkg_* as being similar. > > Possibly, but because of the relative difficulty of preparing RPMs, > you tend to be dependent on the vendor to produce them before you can > upgrade/install said software. ports/packages are much easier to > prepare, and the effort is massively distributed, so you end up > getting your software packaged and installed sooner. s,ports/,Debian , ;-)