Re: Proposal: Source file package format (summary)
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Proposal: Source file package format (summary)
- From: Svante Signell <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 02:09:31 +0100 (CET)
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Here is a summary of the proposal for a common source file format:
- Good idea!
- Waste of time, Use configure; make; make install, Most packages are for Unix, not only Linux.
- Source management problems, no-one is interested in BOTH .rpms and .debs! What about experimental versions?
- For experimental packages, use dselect to put a hold on the new version.
- For debian, directory structure is important, not .dsc files.
- Good suggestion, decision is up to the package author!!
- How to ensure the .spec files are valid and functional?
- Reducing incompatibility between the variants of the GNU/Linux OS'es is a useful job.
- Hard to build good rpm's and deb's. Install to standard directories? What about FHS??
- GNU people participating in LSB work?
- Debian is not GNU!?
- After rms comments about LSB/GNU/Linux/... this thread turned into a flame war!! No more comments of technical nature any more. Sorry I thought it was an idea worth a better faith!!
- Alien can be used, at least from .rpm to .deb
- rpm format to be used for binary packages in LSB.
People who replied:
Iain Wade <email@example.com>
George Toft <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Oliver Elphick <email@example.com>
Adam C Powell IV <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Richard Stallman <email@example.com>
Chris Siebenmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Daniel Quinlan <email@example.com>
Flaming replies not included!!
This mail has been written using GNU Emacs and VM. Wonderful software. What about gemacs,
a gnomified version!?
Happy New Millennium to everybody!
Svante Signell writes:
> What do you think of the following proposal:
> I order to simplify for package authors/maintainers and to reduce
> duplication, distribute the source file packages in .tar.gz (or .tar.bz2)
> format. This avoids the need to provide both .tar.gz, .src.rpm and
> debian source files.
> Included in these tarballs add .spec and .dsc files together with
> the original .tar.gz package and .diff.gz files. Then everybody
> interested can build source/binary files for their own preferred
> distribution using the same source files!!
> Also the GNU packages could contain .deb and .spec files, as is
> already the case (.spec-files) for gnome packages.
> ++ Enables convergence towards Linux Standard Base (LSB)
> ++ Simplifies a lot for package maintainers, distribution specific
> files, .spec, .dsc etc could be supplied by the different vendors.
> ++ Faster feedback to package authors for patches incorporated into
> the main distribution.
> ++ Reduces the risk for patch divergence. (A lot of
> distribution-specific patches)
> + Useful for all .rpm-based systems, rpm -t? is already there.
> + Useful for all .deb-based systems, with minor changes in relevant tools.
> + Useful for .tar.gz-based systems, no changes necessary.
> + ...
> - No easy way to see if .spec and .dsc files are included in the
> .tar.gz package (except using tar, but that requires a download)
> - Distribution profiling more difficult :-(
> - Package naming has to be agreed upon!!
> - ...
> Another issue is to merge the binary file formats .deb and .rpm :-(
> I'm currently running Rawhide, Redhat 6.1, Debian 2.2, Suse 6.3 and
> Mandrake 6.1 on different computers and disks, and would really
> appreciate a common format at least for source packages. Most often I
> recompile the sources myself.
> Please feel free to forward this mail to other interested parties not
> reached by the list here. I would like to start the discussion on this
> subject. No flame wars please!