[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: Source file package format (summary)


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!! 

Binary formats: 
- 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 <iwade@optusnet.com.au>
George Toft <grtoft@yahoo.com>
Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk>
Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@mit.edu>
cyberclay <cclay@fastlane.net>
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Chris Siebenmann <cks@utcc.utoronto.ca>
Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@transmeta.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!
Best regards,

Svante Signell writes:
 > Greetings,
 > 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.
 > Advantages
 > ==========
 > ++ 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.
 > + ...
 > Drawbacks
 > =========
 > - 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!
 > svante.signell@telia.com

Reply to: