[SOLVED] why command line installation is not suggested in PCLOS?

[pmurdia]

Hi,

I like to use Synaptic as the best tool for updating and installing packages. But just a question came in mind that why in PCLOS, it is suggested to NOT use the command line for installing the package(s)  (I read somewhere). I came to know that in Linux, we have two sides - i) .deb packages for Debian side (another distro, etc.. come under this) and ii) .rpm (Redhat, Suse, etc.. come under this). So they both have commands for installing (however, I don't prefer the command line installation), but here in PCLOS, in repo, it is from debian ('apt' (?)) but packages are (?) 'rpm' (too?), so the integration is good, but can one please elaborate this in details for a better clarification and comprehension of PCLOS system...

Thx.

[T6]

this question has been asked in the past, you can find 2 or 3 answers in the forum

short explanation is that it works stable and people prefer a gui than a cli

synaptic will be replaced later to a more friendly rpm app

[pmurdia]

short explanation is that it works stable and people prefer a gui than a cli

Yes, that is correct, GUI is easy and good to use.

synaptic will be replaced later to a more friendly rpm app

But where I am confused is that, if we use rpm apps, then why debian repos are enabled...? Or we use .deb packages too....?

[T6]

debian(between many other servers) kindly offer us a space in their servers to store our repos, there is not a single deb file in our repos, we only use the space they share to us

[pmurdia]

debian(between many other servers) kindly offer us a space in their servers to store our repos, there is not a single deb file in our repos, we only use the space they share to us

OH I see, we use in that space the packages which are rpm? Is it like this...?

[T6]

it is just a server storing files, the files we use including lists, isos and rpm files ordered in folders to be used the way we need it

if you visit one you will find that every repo has the same files eventually, once synced all repos are the same so the debian repo with pclinux files is identical to heanet repo or ibiblio and others

for example this server storing many repositories for many distros

http://distrib-coffee.ipsl.jussieu.fr/pub/linux/

each distor stores what they need in the space shared for them, if you click on pclinux you will see a livecd folder storing all the isos and the apt folder storing all the rpm for the repo

[JohnW_57]

it is just a server storing files, the files we use including lists, isos and rpm files ordered in folders to be used the way we need it

if you visit one you will find that every repo has the same files eventually, once synced all repos are the same so the debian repo with pclinux files is identical to heanet repo or ibiblio and others

for example this server storing many repositories for many distros

http://distrib-coffee.ipsl.jussieu.fr/pub/linux/

each distor stores what they need in the space shared for them, if you click on pclinux you will see a livecd folder storing all the isos and the apt folder storing all the rpm for the repo

Just the same for Debian Mirror: debian.ethz.ch / ftp.ch.debian.org, one of the many ftp servers who syncing from Ibiblio (main serverr).

JohnW

[Hootiegibbon]

The main reason why using the command line for apt-get  is discouraged :

We use apt4rpm and it has differences to that of other versions of apt-get and if some one THINKS they know the command chain as they used a different distro they will probably get it incorrect

Synaptic makes it easier

Jase

[Archie]

short explanation is that it works stable and people prefer a gui than a cli

Yes, that is correct, GUI is easy and good to use.

synaptic will be replaced later to a more friendly rpm app

But where I am confused is that, if we use rpm apps, then why debian repos are enabled...? Or we use .deb packages too....?

Debian repos enabled? Where did you get that idea?

Synaptic and apt4rpm takes the best of both worlds and we benefit from it.

Linux is more than just a choice (FREEDOM). It is also about responsibility. If you are knowledgeable and confident enough to use the command line, the warning (not really a discouragement) to try at your own risk is over your head. But if you need forum support then follow the rules.

[Bald Brick]

In addition to the above:

1) The Synaptic package manager is a graphical front-end to the apt-get command.

2) apt-get was originally developed for the Debian distribution and many years ago it could only handle .deb packages.

3) There is, however, a version of it (that's often called apt-rpm or apt4rpm) that can handle .rpm packages. So neither apt-get nor Synaptic is a tool that can only be used in Debian and its derivatives.



But why are new users discouraged from using apt-get in a terminal? Hootiegibbon gave the reason, but I can give an example.

When you update your system (which you should do fairly often if you are running PCLinuxOS) and if you want to do it from the CLI you have to run two commands:

First "apt-get update", which doesn't update your system but reads the index files listing the available packages.

But then you have a choice. For the actual update you could either run "apt-get upgrade" or "apt-get dist-upgrade". And if you read the documentation "apt-get upgrade" may seem like the safer choice.

It isn't. It will sooner or later bork your system.

"apt-get upgrade" will never uninstall an installed package unless it can replace it with a newer version of the same package. That sounds safe, doesn't it?

Nevertheless some dependencies of an old package may have to be uninstalled (and possibly replaced by a different package). So "apt-get upgrade" doesn't ignore dependencies. It just leaves a lot of dependencies unresolved and lots of programs at their old versions.

"apt-get dist-upgrade", on the other hand, does what "apt-get upgrade" does but takes care of the dependencies too, even if it means that it will have to remove a few obsolete or incompatible packages.

Now, Synaptic uses "apt-get dist-upgrade", as it should. Quite a number of users who want to install from the command line tend to use "apt-get upgrade" instead. And a few weeks later they can't understand what broke their system.



Of course there are other ways of installing from the CLI but if you only install applications from the repository you won't need them. If you want to test something not in the repository -- don't.

Or by all means do; it's your computer. But don't complain when it stops working.



 

[Archie]

Of course there are other ways of installing from the CLI but if you only install applications from the repository you won't need them. If you want to test something not in the repository -- don't.

Or by all means do; it's your computer. But don't complain when it stops working.

Exactly. Then users (both veteran and new) blame the distro for failing. There should be a word for them...

[johnmart]

A very informative explanation BB. 

[CY087]

+++ Sticky?

[kc1di]

Thanks for that great explaination BB.

[pmurdia]

Debian repos enabled? Where did you get that idea?

I just thought it since the repo is having a word, 'debian', that's why......confusion....

http://postimage.org/image/knobawi7l/

We use apt4rpm and it has differences to that of other versions of apt-get and if some one THINKS they know the command chain as they used a different distro they will probably get it incorrect

Synaptic makes it easier

Synaptic and apt4rpm takes the best of both worlds and we benefit from it.

What I get to know is that:

In 'debain' we use: 'apt-get' (or 'aptitude' whatever is...) to fetch as well as install the packages which are '*.deb' (of course).
In 'redhat' side, we use: 'yum' to fetch as well as install the packages which are '*.rpm' (of course).

But in PCLOS: we use: Synaptic (of course nicest) to fetch and install the packages which are '*.rpm' but residing on the servers (as explained earlier....) But in case, if one were using the command line, he/she would definitely be using 'apt-get *' to fetch the packages because the server where these packages reside, are having nomenclature of 'apt' side ('debian'....) but the packages in themselves are '*.rpm', so I guess comes the concept of 'apt4rpm'. However, this work of 'apt4rpm' is done through 'Synaptic', the excellent GUI as well the easiest! If I am still misunderstanding, please do let me know.

1) The Synaptic package manager is a graphical front-end to the apt-get command.

Ah, but it fetches '*.rpm' packages...since it is like 'apt4rpm'.

First "apt-get update", which doesn't update your system but reads the index files listing the available packages.

Oh I see.

Now, Synaptic uses "apt-get dist-upgrade", as it should. Quite a number of users who want to install from the command line tend to use "apt-get upgrade" instead. And a few weeks later they can't understand what broke their system.

Now, Synaptic uses "apt-get dist-upgrade", as it should. Quite a number of users who want to install from the command line tend to use "apt-get upgrade" instead. And a few weeks later they can't understand what broke their system.

So in fact, Synaptic is an excellent tool for that, that's why PCLOS is such a good choice! But if their system breaks after some time (who uses 'apt-get upgrade'), as a matter of interest, what could be the reason...? Is like that it can (in majority of the cases) cause complications, or overlapping, or something bad (don't know what...) goes during the commands....?

Of course there are other ways of installing from the CLI but if you only install applications from the repository you won't need them. If you want to test something not in the repository -- don't.

I would go with this suggestion.

Thanks for a clear-cut explanation.