On Tue, Jul 21, 1998 at 09:35:31AM +0200, fog@irfmn.mnegri.it wrote: > And don't forget the f r e s h m e a t Alan Cox's editorial, where > he says that LSB needs a standard package format (why?) and that > format can be RPM... (is LSB going to be a subset of RH?) I didn't really think before that it did, however after a bit of reading the openprojects mailing list archives and thread on this subject, I've changed my mind. If LSB is going to be a standard, then it needs a standard package file format. Note I say file format, not package manager. The Redhat people are talking about changing their package format so it can be accessed (and created? anyone have more info on this?) by standard tools, in this case gnu cpio. I say this is a good thing--for them and for us. There are many like me who resist the rpm file format because we cannot manipulate the files by hand if we must for whatever reason. I also still object for your above reason calling the file format ".rpm". I would object as strongly if we were going with the .deb format. Proposed standards should not include proprietary names. dpkg CAN be modified to read a cpio instead of or in addition to a .deb if the contents are similar. And in fact, the contents are VERY similar. It has been said that dpkg would be modified if need be to do just that.
Attachment:
pgpkNPCSKqrZT.pgp
Description: PGP signature