From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.chez-thomas.org (hermes.mlbassoc.com [64.234.241.98]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2683F4C800BA for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:02:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 999) id CECF4166023E; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:02:57 -0600 (MDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2-r929478 (2010-03-31) on hermes.chez-thomas.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2-r929478 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E57B1660107; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:02:57 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4D875A91.8000402@mlbassoc.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:02:57 -0600 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Purdie References: <4D86B0D2.2070004@mlbassoc.com> <1300708651.30423.3434.camel@rex> In-Reply-To: <1300708651.30423.3434.camel@rex> Cc: Poky Subject: Re: RPM vs IPK X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:03:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/21/2011 05:57 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 19:58 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote: >> I know that historically Poky has used 'ipk' as the primary packaging >> mechanism. It seems that now Poky/Yocto has move to 'rpm'. My distribution >> is still using ipk, but I'm happy to change, given a good argument. >> >> * Is there such [a good reason] to use rpm over ipk? >> * What are the pros and cons? I'm mostly interested in very resource limited >> deeply embedded systems which often only run from FLASH. >> >> Thanks for any comments > > My advice is that for such a resource limited system, you're probably > best of sticking to ipk, particularly if you have it working already. > > opkg: > > * Has a smaller disk footprint > * Is generally faster than rpm > > rpm+zypper: > > * More of an industry standard > * Emphasises correctness and robustness over speed (e.g. number of > fsync calls) Does this mean ipk/opkg fails along these lines in any way? > * Has desktop/enterprise features Such as? > * Not optimised for size (e.g. uses c++) > > I'd not say one was better than the other, they're just different and > suit different use cases. Pretty much what I thought, thanks. My only concern is that if rpm is the primary emphasis, ipk/opkg might suffer from rot. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------