Re: Packaging and installation
In message <[🔎] 3AF8AA93.65FE7937@optushome.com.au>, Glenn McGrath
<bug1@optushome.com.au> writes
>Jeffrey Watts wrote:
>> > If LSB decides RPM is just fine only for LSB-related
>> > programs/libraries/etc, then what we are doing is pushing the distro
>> > world toward RPM for everything.
>>
>> Nick, I don't know where you've been, but RPM _is_ the standard. Most 3rd
>> party software out there that is packaged is packaged for RPM. The
>> current state of affairs hurts the smaller distributions. The LSB would
>> _improve_ the state of affairs by allowing ISVs to develop software that
>> would run on more systems than just Red Hat. This is a good thing for
>> everyone (including Red Hat).
>>
>
>Sorry to drag up this old thread, but this issue isnt going to go away
>by ignoring it.
>
>You (and the LSB) are suggesting that RPM should be the default package
>format seemingly on the basis that its more widely used.
And the format adopted by the LSB is *NOT* RPM, but a restricted subset
thereof.
>
>My guess is that the biggest reason that more 3rd party developers
>create rpm packages is becasue of redhats image, i seriously doubt 3rd
>party develoeprs investigate the technical merits of rpm's v's debs' v's
>??? and then decide to produce only one.
And as someone who uses an rpm-based distro (not a RedHat based distro -
it predates RH by some considerable time span) it can be a real pain
installing a RedHat rpm on SuSE :-(
>
>People arent going to change package formats to something they consider
>inferiour, or as flawed as their curent system.
And the distros will almost certainly ignore the LSB as far as their own
programs are concerned. Why should they be bothered? The main aim of the
LSB at present is to ensure that binary-only packages will install and
run successfully.
>
>If there is a clearly superier packaging system then the LSB should
>support that and that alone, if there are number of packaging systems
>that each have different flaws and benefits then the LSB should
>recognise all these different packaging systems as having a valid
>purpose, but recognise that they are not ideal.
Which is why I am pushing for an api to interface between install
programs and package management databases. But seeing as the aim of the
LSB at present is to standardise what is already out there, this is not
under consideration for LSB 1.0 :-(
>
>I dont see how the LSB can ever succeed if it is based on a popularity
>contest rather than technical merit.
And it can't succeed by permitting incompatible alternatives, either.
>
>The LSB is shooting itself in the foot by alienating non-RPM supporters
>
And by trying to accommodate both deb and rpm it would be shooting
itself in the head :-( The whole aim is to support commercial vendors,
who do NOT want to be presented with two compatible alternatives.
Just to keep you happy, it is under consideration that both deb and rpm
might be consigned to the scrap heap. It's just not practical to address
that at this point in time.
>
>Glenn
>
>
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999
Reply to: