On Tue, Jul 21, 1998 at 05:21:51AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > 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. > > File formats imply a purpose. If it's a package file format, then that > implies some things about the package database. So either LSB is going > to have to standardize on not having a package database or it's going > to have to standardize on some specific package database format. Not quite the case... .deb files are not allowed to play with info/* directly, or any other dpkg file really. They can use dpkg tools, but they cannot modify dpkg's database and similar. However, tools and package version numbers are an issue. Does rpm support epochs? Does it allow ~pre's as dpkg may at some point? Does it provide update-alternatives? diversions? These are the issues we need to address. Tools of this nature are what make Debian's package manager IMO better than Redhat's. And I'm not going to give them up if there are no suitable replacements. > Then again, we can't even get simple bugs fixed in dpkg... Not many of us are C programmers. I can't even figure out how to get a program which at the momen #include's an xpm file to read a file and load what it finds.
Attachment:
pgpenRL02WwmS.pgp
Description: PGP signature