Talk:RPM Package Manager

message: Which other OSes has rpm been ported to? BL 14:07, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
I added a link to the page at RPM.org that lists the various operating systems to which it has been ported. Better this way than to have to continually update it whenever a new port is made. Avalyn 10:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porting 

message: Use of the (now seriously broken) MD5 algorithm is listed as an advantage. Is this still true (in which case it should surely be listed as a disadvantage!), or has RPM transitioned to a more secure method already (in which case that should be mentioned in the article)? --62.173.111.114 12:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MD5 

message: Isn't the "Package Manager" in "RPM Package Manager" redundant?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.206.36.126 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the idea of recursive initialisms. Chris Cunningham 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: Can someone with the expert knowledge please update the description for rpm naming format for the release naming convention.  The description is lacking for the .rf and .at, they seem to indicate packagers but i'm not certain enough make an update to the article. Thank you.
<release>.<distribution>.rf.<arch> <release>.<distribution>.at.<arch>— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.249.230 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many  release naming conventions that are currently deployed. No one scheme is dominant or accepted sufficiently widely that it needs documenting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by N3npq (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: RPM is not a "recursive acronym".  It is a "recursive abbreviation".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.84.67.230 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be precise, it's a recursive initialism. I've edited the article appropriately. Chris Cunningham 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No it doesn't. Oh, and please get an account, and sign your posts. EdC (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not recursive.  It would be if it stood for "RPM is a Package Manager."  When people say "RPM Package Manager" the "Package Manager" part is redundant, because the last 2 letters already say that it's a package manager.  It's kind of like how people say "CIA Agent." Central Intelligence Agency Agent? KenFehling (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recursive abbreviation 

message: I don't mean to bother anyone, but shouldn't it be prudent to make seperate sections for the existing types of RPM's:
*Normal RPMs
*Source RPMs
*Delta RPMs
Any ideas?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.98.178 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  types of RPM's 

message: Shouldn't this article mention  alien? Debian-based distros use alien to install rpms.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsProgrammable (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alien

message: Someone has removed this section.  If they have a valid reason and read this, could they explain why?  I feel that this section should remain, any one else agree? 87.102.23.39 05:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disadvantages

message: When was first released rpm package Manager?. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.22.70.236 (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am missing a version history as well.--85.180.234.215 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: When was first released 

message: (2007-01-23) Just to let you know.  The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors.  It will remain on the portal for a week or so.  The previous selected article was Advanced Packaging Tool. Gronky 14:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The selected article has moved on and is now GIMP. Gronky 14:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[Portal:Free software]], RPM is currently the selected article 

message: Please remove my name everywhere on this page. I am tired of a controversy I did not
create and want my private life back.
The current page has a link to the "RPM 4 project home page" http://rpm.org/
contrasted to "Jeff Johnson's RPM Package Manager Hone Page" http://www.rpm5.org/.
One does not have to got too much farther than http://rpm5.org/team.php to see many people, not
just me, working on RPM 5. Your link is factually incorrect.
(aside) It is not very hard to see that the intent of the word spinning is to imply that
me and me alone is responsible for RPM 5.0. Again, factually incorrect.
Finally, rpm5.org is not my home page, also factually incorrect.
By continuing to associate "Jeff Johnson" with RPM in WikiPaedia, the connection to Bugzilla #119185 and the kur5hin slander (which claimed that I bathe less often than once a month and find Jewesses "hot") keeps going on and on and on and on. Stop it now please.
Signed: Jeff Johnson
.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.24.120 (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again I ask: 

message: Most of this section applies to using distributions using the rpm format, not to the rpm format itself. 
It is not a good introduction to the format itself, and if at all it should be moved way down the page.
The advantage and disadvantes list and paragraph look biased regarding formatting and content.
Some advantages are outdated, or very biased. There are more .deb based distributions, and it clearly
is very popular too. RPM packages do not conform to LSB automagically, if their content does not. 
Signing and verification isn't that special and other formats do it too. Most of the listed disadvantages
are not a RPM format issue either, but of sloppy distribution maintainers.
IMHO this should be removed completely.
149.148.161.72 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages, Disadvantages 

message: I have been through the article and attempted to tidy it up. Hopefully the result has better structure and consistency; it also happens to be somewhat shorter (a good thing in this context) by the removal of some oft-repeated information. More work is probably needed, but it's a start, at least. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy up 

message: It would be nice if there were some examples of using rpm
(or pointers to such examples)
128.16.7.220 (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of use 

message: I replaced Red Hat Linux for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, sine Red Hat Linux exists no more. It was replaced for Fedora Core and afterwards Fedora. One of the reasons was to avoid misunderstanding between Red Hat Linux and Red Hat Enterprise Linux, that's why even nowadays it's important to say RHEL or Red Hat Enterprise Linux when you're meaning it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.61.157.237 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Hat Linux

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on RPM Package Manager. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://arklinux.org/?q=node/53#rpm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified