Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:26:58AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >
> > Since the LSB is mainly useful for binary-only distributors, we need not get
> > annoyed over their choice of rpm. After all, it makes more sense, since most
> > distributors already have staff that knows how to build rpms anyway.
> >
>
> So the LSB is just about convienience then is it (do whats easiest) ?
>
> If LSB compromise on quality then they will only ever get a subset of
> the community supporting it, why not try for something better than both
> RPM or DEB, its the only way people will willingly change.
>
> If nothing can be made that is better than both RPM and DEB then both
> package systems obviously have a purpose.
I agree. The LSB should contrast/compare features of both and come up
with a superset of both (possibly favoring ones implementation over the
other). Most importantly, the metadata format needs to be standardized.
That is the key component. If that is standard, then the binary format
means very little (since a simple converter can be created just like
alien).
After that, then all package managers atleast can aim for something,
instead of shooting in the dark like we do now. The LSB needs to stay
away from trying to standardize a binary format (who cares if it's
tar.gz, ar or cpio). They will only piss people off.
Ben
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: