Re: RH and GNOME
On Wed, Jul 22, 1998 at 03:00:16AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 1998 at 08:53:24PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I hardly think that deserves an answer. There have been many occasions
> > > when I've wished I could use an rpm (yes, I know about alien), and some
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > commercial stuff is distributed as rpms (not that I use commercial
> > > software personally when I can avoid it - but this provides value to our
> > > users).
> >
> > So, what's wrong with alien? I've used it to install some commercial
> > RPMs for people in may group, and it has worked flawlessly.
> > What else do you want? Why would anyone need a f* unified package
> > format, if he have the tools to convert from whatever to its native
> > package format without losing functionality? (Now, go and ask that to
> > all those standard-writers out there).
>
> That's fine, as long as the LSB rpm ``standard'' is forked from the Redhat,
> and other distrib's rpm ``standard'', so that either party can make
> modifications without affecting the other.
>
> Otherwise two negative consequences could arise:
[..]
So there are (at least) two cons, and I still don't see any pro. I ask
again : what's wrong with alien? Why do we need a * unified package
system?
OTOH, I feel that discussing this issue here won't give us nothing. The
people taking the decission don't care about what we discuss down here
in debian-devel.
So, let's change focus. What functionality do we lose if we make dpkg
generate and read those strange cpio+wierd-headers files instead of our
beloved ar with two tars inside?
--
Enrique Zanardi ezanardi@ull.es
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: