Last Message: Re: SMIT
Next Message: Re: SMIT (was: Re: So... whaddya got?)
Date: 2002-11-29 00:29:38
From "C.L. Harting "
Subject: Re: SMIT (was: Re: So... whaddya got?)
--------------E3DE5962043DBBCE61284ECB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't believe that IBM is moving to RPM for AIX package management (although I haven't seen 5.2 yet). The RPMs that I have seen and installed were all Linux packages compiled to run under AIX, execept for RPM: rpm.rte 3.0.5.20 C F RPM Package Manager AIX-rpm 5.1.0.0 C R Virtual Package for libraries F -- Installp Fileset R -- RPM Package Steve Scotten wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 06:58:59PM +0100, Stefan Tibus wrote: > > > And there I was, fascinated about AIX, how easy it's been > > to install it and how easy administration was using SMIT > > compared to most things I've seen on Linux and Solaris. > > Yeah, for all the static I get from my Linux using friends about how > weird AIX is, I've found it to be really straightforward, and SMIT is > just one example of that. > > A friend of mine called AIX "Unix from Mars". I'm imagining the > tough-as-nails god of War fending off threats and remaining on top of > the heap! =^) > > One thing that upsets me is IBM's apparant wish to move to RPM as the > software package manager for AIX. I appreciate how that makes AIX > friendly to Linux users, but I don't know what the point of having two > package managers on a system is, if one can't check the other for > dependencies. If I have Perl installed through SMIT/installp, RPM will > never know about it. > > Does AIX 5.x use RPM exclusively? I'd guess not since Bull's site > lists their .bff files as being for 4.3 or 5.1. > > -- > Steven M. Scotten > <s@p90.net> -- C.L. Harting clharting@wideopenwest.com "Familiarity (with UNIX) breeds contempt (for other operating systems) -- and children (Linux)." --------------E3DE5962043DBBCE61284ECB Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> I don't believe that IBM is moving to RPM for AIX package management (although I haven't seen 5.2 yet). The RPMs that I have seen and installed were all Linux packages compiled to run under AIX, execept for RPM:<tt></tt> <p><tt> rpm.rte 3.0.5.20 C F RPM Package Manager</tt> <br><tt> AIX-rpm 5.1.0.0 C R Virtual Package for libraries F -- Installp Fileset</tt> <br><tt>R -- RPM Package</tt> <br><tt></tt> <tt></tt> <p>Steve Scotten wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 06:58:59PM +0100, Stefan Tibus wrote: <p>> And there I was, fascinated about AIX, how easy it's been <br>> to install it and how easy administration was using SMIT <br>> compared to most things I've seen on Linux and Solaris. <p>Yeah, for all the static I get from my Linux using friends about how <br>weird AIX is, I've found it to be really straightforward, and SMIT is <br>just one example of that. <p>A friend of mine called AIX "Unix from Mars". I'm imagining the <br>tough-as-nails god of War fending off threats and remaining on top of <br>the heap! =^) <p>One thing that upsets me is IBM's apparant wish to move to RPM as the <br>software package manager for AIX. I appreciate how that makes AIX <br>friendly to Linux users, but I don't know what the point of having two <br>package managers on a system is, if one can't check the other for <br>dependencies. If I have Perl installed through SMIT/installp, RPM will <br>never know about it. <p>Does AIX 5.x use RPM exclusively? I'd guess not since Bull's site <br>lists their .bff files as being for 4.3 or 5.1. <p>-- <br>Steven M. Scotten <br><s@p90.net></blockquote> <pre>-- C.L. Harting clharting@wideopenwest.com "Familiarity (with UNIX) breeds contempt (for other operating systems) -- and children (Linux)."</pre> </html> --------------E3DE5962043DBBCE61284ECB--
This message has been viewed 1035 times
Last Message: Re: SMIT
Next Message: Re: SMIT (was: Re: So... whaddya got?)