Re: Time to fight for our beloved DEB format!
Hi,
> Frankly, I disagree with the subject. LSB allows the distribution to
> use a different (i.e. dpkg) packaging format than rpm. More
> importantly, rpm is the packaging format used by every other
> significant Linux distribution. While I agree that a million flies may
> be wrong, as far as I have understood, there are no significant
> functional differences between dpkg and rpm. Package dependencies may
> be declared explicitly in rpm as well, as well as functional
> dependencies (Requires: MTA). Debconf is not a package format issue,
> but a policy issue. While dpkg uses fairly robust text file format,
> rpm uses Berkeley DB's, which are very established as well, and
> somewhat faster and more compact than dpkg text files. Etc etc. Both
Yes it's true that RPM is actually, faster than DEB, but when you would
like to hand-hack a package's status information, and you do not have
a copy of 'maximum(or minimum?) rpm' in your hand, you would then
love deb. moreover, i know you won't forget ian and debra, right? :p
> packaging formats have their pros as well as cons. What ensures the
> high quality of Debian, is its policy. Still, a packaging format
> should not be seen as a religious issue.
Well, the high quality of debian, eh, is true, that it is ensured by the
strict policy and the kind and true heart of hackers contribution..
(i think i have done something, though not much, as a lamer..)
but still, i don't want to see deb comes down and die.
however, I'm not going to start a holy war (tm).
> What I would like to see, in the light of LSB, would be that
>
> 1) A transparent way to install LSB-compliant rpms in Debian is
> implemented. Preferably one should be able to install rpms with 'dpkg'
> command line tool, although an automatic format transform with 'alien'
> could be performed behind the scenes.
This is outrangous! I think we should not do this to make it LSB compliant,
however, if you would say to make this 'lam3r-proof' it would be okay for me
kind of religious issue here, though.
> 2) Assuming that I am not misinformed about the functional
> compatibility of dpkg and rpm, a LONG TERM goal for transforming
> Debian to rpm base is issued. This would include adding rpm support
> for all Debian package management tools, and transition tools for the
> database contents, etc.
I would really be sad if deb is going to die.
and this would really be starting to catch fire, mind your speech, buddy :)
> I am sorry if I brought up a inflammable issue, but I'd really like to
> see some (civil, positive) discussion around the subject. Standards
> (usually) are a good thing, and especially a common packaging format
> for all Linux distributions would help acceptance and adoption of
> Linux, and more importantly, Debian.
Yes, Debian is always conforming to standard, but i hate somebody who
make a standard which is ourageous, like microsoft. (the kind "IE4.0 HTML"
is a very good example illustrating it).
However, Microsoft do have good
products (like this Outlook express i'm using).
> Best regards,
--
k h a o s * lamer
new name, new look, new ftp:
linuxxxxx.dyn.dhs.org (change FOUR letter)
upload something before downloading, or your class C IP banned.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matti Airas" <mairas@iki.fi>
To: "Lamer" <perlamer@netfront.net>
Cc: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: Time to fight for our beloved DEB format!
Reply to: