Re: [expert] Re: Proposal: Source file package format (summary)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Cc: 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: [expert] Re: Proposal: Source file package format (summary)
- From: Jean-Michel Dault <jmdault@NetRevolution.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:46:10 -0500 (EST)
- Message-id: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I thought about this issue for a long time... And I came up with a
- The .tar.gz (or .bz2) source file format is ideal, because it's for any
- Source RPMS not only contains the .spec and main source, but often
contains patches, additional source files, documentation, etc.
- Often, you have different rpms, for RedHat, Mandrake, SuSe, Caldera, and
others, with some subtle differences.
What I would suggest is having the .tar.gz source file, plus another file,
with a .build-rh.rpm , .build-mdk.rpm .build.deb extension.
That way, the author only has to maintain his source code, support for
particular distributions are found in a small separate file. You could
even have a .build-rh-contrib.rpm or .build-mdk-official.rpm, so you know
whether this is an official rpm or not. It would be up to the author of
the application to decide to put or not the build files on the ftp site.
Write me your comments on this!
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Svante Signell wrote:
> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 02:09:31 +0100 (CET)
> From: Svante Signell <email@example.com>
> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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
> Subject: [expert] 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 <email@example.com>
> George Toft <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Oliver Elphick <email@example.com>
> Adam C Powell IV <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> cyberclay <email@example.com>
> Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Chris Siebenmann <email@example.com>
> Daniel Quinlan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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!
> > email@example.com