Posted by: Anonymous
[ip: 206.193.197.226]
on August 22, 2008 07:40 PM
I've taken the training to develop for rPath (Foresight is to rPath roughly as CentOS is to RHEL) so I've spent quite a bit of time working with Conary and, well, I can't find anything I want in Conary that isn't in any other package manager. Rollbacks are commonly mentioned as being a big advantage of Conary, but you can't roll back with Conary if you do anything complicated where "complicated" is defined pretty broadly. The thing is, rollback wasn't very useful to us because it's quite a bit easier to take a drive image than it is to develop for rPath, restoring from a drive image works no matter what the upgrade process is, and installing from a drive image is quite a bit faster than rolling back using Conary.
My own opinion is that Conary, having been written by the person who created RPM, suffers from the "second system effect", but given rPath's target market (manufacturers of network appliances) the sort of elaborate versioning inherent in Conary may be worthwhile. It certainly attempts to solve various project management issues, although I've always used convention to solve those issues in a simpler manner and have had no problems.
We eventually decided that the value proposition inherent in rPath just wasn't there for us and so we didn't renew the contract. Now we build RPMs that install under both RHEL and Debian/Ubuntu, which suits our needs well enough.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re(1): really overdue?
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 206.193.197.226] on August 22, 2008 07:40 PMMy own opinion is that Conary, having been written by the person who created RPM, suffers from the "second system effect", but given rPath's target market (manufacturers of network appliances) the sort of elaborate versioning inherent in Conary may be worthwhile. It certainly attempts to solve various project management issues, although I've always used convention to solve those issues in a simpler manner and have had no problems.
We eventually decided that the value proposition inherent in rPath just wasn't there for us and so we didn't renew the contract. Now we build RPMs that install under both RHEL and Debian/Ubuntu, which suits our needs well enough.
#