Arch or ?

Associate
Joined
4 Apr 2011
Posts
775
Location
Kent
Hey all,

Been umming and aahing about switching from Windows to a Linux OS as my primary desktop and finally decided to make the change and then install a smallish windows partition for a few games that refuse to work well with Wine/PlayOnLinux.

I've been debating between Arch Linux and the minimal Ubuntu installation to avoid getting any pre-packed applications that I don't want or need. Main reason for asking is my issues with Arch and the installation of certain programs that are only avaliable as .deb or .rpm files.

Ubuntu uses debian packages which seem to be the most common Linux install file however arch does not support this and I'm not too comfortable using the PKGBUILD system to get the files installed. The problem with Ubuntu being that I have little experience with apt and not 100% sure how it works with repositories etc.

So I suppose my question is would I be better off learning to write PKGBUILD files and using Arch or learning to use Apt and going with Ubuntu? Or is there another system like Arch that supports .deb or .rpm packages?

Cheers
 
I've got yaourt installed, what I mean is that according to the Arch forums the best/only way to install .deb packages on Arch is by writing a custom PKGBUILD for the files that I want to install. Hence possibly needing to learn how to write my own.
 
I was hoping to be able to install games from the Humble Indie Bundles and the majority of those are only downloadable as either .deb, .rpm or .tar.gz which none of which are easily installable on Arch unless I'm missing something?
 
Just had a look through the list and all looks pretty solid.

Found a few arcticles on the subject of .deb files on Arch and found that there's a dpkg package on the AUR. After using
Code:
dpkg --force-depends -i packagename.deb
I managed to get a few apps to install. Are there any dangers of forcing .deb installs on Arch this way?
 
Back
Top Bottom