Re: Package System specification
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, David Cantrell wrote:
> And that's fine, but it shouldn't be in the standard because not all
> of those features are supported across distributions.
That's a crappy argument, and it's trivial to find an example where your
argument fails. What about the Linux Router Project? Should we only
standardize what it can fit on a floppy? I expect that some distributions
will have to change a bit to support FHS and the other LSB specifications.
This is a good thing, in general. Those distributions that don't want to
standardize will probably do fine, but may have difficulties using
shrink-wrapped and general-purpose applications. In fact, niche
distributions are great (like the LRP), and in the future the LSB may make
a specification for minimalist or specialized systems.
We are setting a _standard_, not seeking a subset of _all_ Linux
distributions. Again, this topic has been beaten to death during the
Current flamewar. Please read the archives.
> There's really no difference there. If you specify RPM as the package
> format, then you are also saying RPM is the standard packaging system.
It's the standard packaging _format_. People can use whatever package
management system they choose, or no package management at all. It's
easier to move 10% of the userbase to the RPM format, than to move 100% of
the userbase to a new "distribution-neutral" package format, whatever that
beast may be. Note that the Debian people don't have a problem with this.
I get the feeling that your true motivation is a dislike of Red Hat.
Your arguments don't carry much weigh technically, and given that this is
all Free software, what's your problem with RPM? Slack doesn't need to
run rpm, you can use your tarballs if you like for your local stuff, and
use rpm2tgz or whatever for StarOffice and the like.
> The installation goes fine, but you lost dependencies during the
> conversion, and the program doesn't run because you didn't meet the
> dependencies. So, the only way this will work is if all distributions
> fully support/base-on RPM as their packaging system. And how are
> dependencies going to flawlessly work unless we are all naming things
> exactly the same (files and packages)?
Uh, if it doesn't work that's because the version of Debian you're using
ISN'T LSB-COMPLIANT. You're forgetting that the RPM format is a small
part of the specification.
> The standardized package format should be lowest common denominator to
> allow flawless installation and removal on all distributions.
Think about it. Should the current LSB spec support uLinux then? LRP?
C'mon, a LCD standard is pointless. A standard should provide
_direction_, not state what we already have. Look to the IETF for
examples.
Also, read the archives. This has all been said before.
J.
o-----------------------------------o
| Jeffrey Watts |
| watts@jayhawks.net o-----------------------------------------o
| Systems Programmer | "If we can hit that bullseye, the rest |
| Network Systems Management | of the dominos will fall like a house |
| Sprint Communications | of cards... checkmate." |
o----------------------------| -- Zap Branigan |
o-----------------------------------------o
Reply to: