Talk:Package management system

message: Mac OS X does have some package management functionality (an installer and a software update utility), which should be included here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mac OS X installer needs mentioning! 

message: === Related tools ===
RPM is often used by another tool for handling dependencies, such as the Yellow Dog Updater Modified (yum) or the RPM-based version of the Advanced Packaging Tool (apt).
Some other package managers are 
* dpkg used with Advanced Packaging Tool (apt) in Debian GNU/Linux
* portage used with emerge in Gentoo Linux
* Encap Package Management System
* cygcheck used in Cygwin
The following tools are simply front ends to RPM-based systems:
* YaST used in SuSE
* urpmi used in Mandriva Linux
* yum used in Yellow Dog Linux and Fedora Core.
In addition, the advanced dependency-management system in APT has been ported to work on RPM databases as apt4rpm.
See also: Archive formats
- Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[RPM Package Manager]] 

message: RPM is often used by another tool for handling dependencies, such as the Yellow Dog Updater Modified (yum) or the RPM-based version of the Advanced Packaging Tool (apt).
Some other package managers are 
* dpkg used with Advanced Packaging Tool (apt) in Debian GNU/Linux
* portage used with emerge in Gentoo Linux
* Encap Package Management System
* cygcheck used in Cygwin
The following tools are simply front ends to RPM-based systems:
* YaST used in SuSE
* urpmi used in Mandriva Linux
* yum used in Yellow Dog Linux and Fedora Core.
In addition, the advanced dependency-management system in APT has been ported to work on RPM databases as apt4rpm.
See also: Archive formats
- Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related tools 

message: Mostly I am suggesting the merge to force a clarification of what each article is about. Some of the material in Installer belongs in this article, and some material that clearly belongs in Installer is simply absent. klik would be an example of an installer mentioned in the PMS article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merge of [[Package management system]] and [[Installer]] 

message: I think it would be nice to have a comparison table that outlines features of various package management systems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kc8tpz (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of package management systems 

message: # [...] whereas the PMS of Mac OS X and Windows will only upgrade software provided by Apple and Microsoft, respectively [...]
#: What, if any exists, is the official Windows PMS? --Abdull 09:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows PMS 

message: What does the diagram achieve that a numbered list (inline with the text) wouldn't?  Is it meant to imply a cycle?  Also, the "typical" manual action of requesting a reboot, is quite atypical except on Windows.  (That example just perpetuates the myth that it's normal for computers to need to get rebooted every time some dumb screen saver is installed).  —Fleminra 23:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, it's because of the way Linux executables use libraries. You don't normally have to reboot the whole system, just the processes that use the updated libraries, and that only if those processes are going to keep running indefinitely.  Linux isn't flawless, and I don't know anyone who says it is. But to pretend that Linux is not a stable system that can run for months without rebooting is silly. I only reboot my server when I install a new kernel or change hardware. But this is probably not the right place for such a discussion. Skreyola (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That opinion was said more than two years ago, I think that article has already reflected the facts you're basing your point of view upon. 1exec1 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  diagram 

message: I spent some time cleaning up, and possibly making some sections worse. :).   There seems to be an odd cloud of related pages of varying quality, from the individual package managers, installers, and general terms like software distribution.  What would be a good 'master' article that talks about the whole system administration of installed software that can put all this in perspective to a person with only a general understanding of computers.  It just feels like the cloud is wrong.  Any ideas?--Charles Merriam (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A cloud of articles 

message: Does anyone know the history?  It probably makes a difference.   
Also, we should have some sort of How Does It Work section and diagram.  The diagram might have the software 
repository, package manager, internals of a package, the local package database, and some directories.   Showing
how a user contacts a repository, selects a package from the description, gets prompted to download dependencies, 
downloads to local machine, unpacks into local directories, and updates the local package database might be good.
Hmmm..... --Charles Merriam (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sections:  History; How does it works. 

message: Hello - I've upgraded the formatting of the references. This includes verifying that the links are still active. Sometimes over time they become dead links. Standard reference syntax has the "retrieved on" date as the original viewing date. My changes have that date as the most current viewing date. This helps Wikipedia editors see, at a glance, when that page was last verified as active. E_dog95'   Hi ' 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reference updates 

message: Terms on the table are wrong. None of the Linux or *BSD package manager systems belongs to operating system. They are just like normal applications running top of operating system. The article information is wrong and is mistaken by typical conclusion and not for computer science. The package management system is just a set of tools and can be removed totally if wanted, it just comes preinstalled on software system and belongs usually to system programs -level, what is top of OS -level. This might not be the case of Windows NT, where even the browser was/is part of OS because it is integrated to it, so the package management system might be part of OS.  Golftheman (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Terminology table 

message: I know the difference between an installer and a package management system; this does not concern that. But at the top of the article it says "a package management system is sometimes incorrectly referred to as a package manager or a system install manager." A package management system and a package manager are the same thing. RPM is called the "RPM Package Manager," and is a package management system. I'm taking the part that says it's incorrectly referred to as a package manager out. Sockigami (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Package management system versus package manager 

message: This edit made the article internally inconsistent, using the terms "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" interchangeably. This is confusing; we should use one or the other. It should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert 

message: Why does this not live at package manager? —Wiki Wikardo 19:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: please consider adding a link to http://code.google.com/p/windows-package-manager/
62.153.127.78 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPM (Windows Package Manager) 

message: Any reason why this has it's own special link in See Also and can it be removed to List of software package management systems, perhaps the Linux distributions section? Teh klev (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNU Stow 

message: In 2006, he said it sucked, but hopefully not for much longer.  His recent blog post where the "Impact" article section was taken from stated his reasoning for thinking it was a lot better now was that:
:These days, you increasingly just “apt-get install whatever“.
Debian-based distros coming to be used more is good for standards?  That's not a solution or standard, that's everyone choosing one thing.  Package management still sucks in that there still isn't integration with software management systems for "third-party programs" essentially, and ISVs are still facing the exact same problem of needing to support many distros.  This latest blog post of his didn't address any of the problems and points he made in those two earlier posts.
Thus, I think his earlier comments about package management sucking on Linux should also be noted, or that "Impact" section completely removed.  I also think a section on fragmentation and a lack of packaging standards (especially between Linux distros) is needed. Yfrwlf (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal POV has no place in Wikipedia.  1) Package management still sucks in that there still isn't integration with software management systems for "third-party programs" - Bullshit. Noone (including Google, Oracle, Skype to name a few) has any difficulties packaging their software for Linux distributions.  2) fragmentation - According to this report  more than 60-65% of desktop Linux users use Ubuntu + Debian distributions (which in turn use deb package format) and additional 10-15% use Fedora + SUSE (rpm package format). I don't see fragmentation issues here.  3) lack of packaging standards - are you living in the previous century? Making deb and rpm packages already covers more than 99% of Linux market. 1exec1 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Murdock about package management 

message: What is this here, and what is not the relationship to SCCM (its software distribution module)? --Alien4 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello there!  Well, "package management system" is pretty much a general term, while SCCMI supposecontains a Microsoft's specific implementation of such a concept. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you would say, there is a connection between the two, but no obvious relationship (intrawikilinking or so) between them in the Wikipedia? There are tons of mentionings of *nx, whereas Windows just a few. Or maybe I'm confusing something; although I maybe rather would consider msi a package management technology, it is mentioned here, whereas a software (package) managment *system* like SCCM is not. Or maybe I'm just too completely confused. --Alien4 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm completely unfamiliar with SCCM so unfortunately I can't draw any conclusions, but I'd say that SCCM might fit better into the Systems management article, while SCCM's specific components might be mentioned in Software repository article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  With SCCM you can do software deployment (or software distribution, whichever expression you like best), and you can do that also with msi, App-V packages or others. In other organisations it might be different, but I know it best as that beeing the main functionality of SCCM. Which leads me to conclusion, although it does system management - S stands for "System", (CC), M stands for "Manager" - and personally I might maybe rather regard a combination of SCCM with a version control system like ClearCase as a software repository (maybe i confuse that with a Definitive Media Library), a software (package) deployment/distribution (system) (module) seems to be a lot like a "package management system" to me. But then again, do I understand the package management system article right? You know, stuff like dependencies - expressis verbis in the article introduction - is stuff you can (also) do in SCCM, although they might be more high level dependencies: if you want to install an Office plugin, MS Office must be installed, but you don't put the dependend MS Office in the plugin msi; it might be a good idea however to define that dependency in SCCM. --Alien4 (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hm, can SCCM automatically handle dependencies and install required packages?  For example, when you try to install a software package which requires Visual C++'s redistributable runtime, is SCCM going to locate and install that runtime package despite the fact it isn't contained within the original software package? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  *System*