Re: package formats (was Re: RH and GNOME)
> Now my next crushing blow: rpm is not up to the task of LSB. However, dpkg
> isn't either. dpkg could be extended easily to handle the changes and the
> =2Edeb files are able to expand to meet the changes without ANY changes to
> structure. But then, so could a standard gnu cpio next version of .rpm
> file.
>
> If LSB gets a package format, dammit it better be a good one.
>
>
I am not convinced that packaging software is sufficiently well understood
yet to be properly standardised anyway. To be truly useful a package format
needs to specify not just dependencies on other packages and where software
is to be installed, but things like how daemons should be initialised,
menu items added etc.
Having said that I think that it would be great to identify which bits are
well defined, but the format should be designed in the knowledge that new
things (standard icon for the package ? etc) may be added later.
John Lines
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: