Re: Errr.... concept level mismatch?
> Did you ever see apt or yum tools?
> If the description is correct then
> you're trying to solve the problem at
> the wrong level (and it's already solved
> long ago, just in case).
> It may well be the case for RH users but
> the rest of the world wasn't staying
> with basic package management when the
> most abstract thing is a package -- it's
> OK but people need more, so package
> repositories and tools to handle
> collections of packages were
> But see: it's a different layer, they
> didn't throw lower-level tools like rpm
> and dpkg out of the window since they do
> their job at their level reasonably
> well. It's just that it's not their job
> to operate at a higher level.
> Re "loosely connected": you loose indeed
> at least on library version hell (the
> price is synchronization efforts by
> version bloat, the more efforts or
> versions, the more chance for such thing
> to work). Or is there some other
> solution within precompiled binary
> package paradigm?
One of the many problems Conary solves is the problem that separate APT/Yum repositories don't always coexist nicely with each other. Hence, you have to resort to hacks in your version strings of your packages like epochs, ".alt1", ".alt2", "fc1", "fr", ad nauseum. Conary solves this and many other problems, as described in the short whitepaper (http://www.specifix.com/technology/conary.pdf).
Conary solves real-life problems that apt/yum can't properly solve because of underlying inflexibilities with RPM and deb formats.
Please read the white papers posted at http://wiki.specifix.com/ (http://wiki.specifix.com/) -- they're well-written and provide a good introduction to what Conary does, the problems it solves, and how it has been designed from the ground up to fix many shortcomings and weaknesses that apt and yum just can't touch.