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


On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:23:22PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > No way that rpm replaces dpkg; dpkg is doing a far better job in defining
> > dependencies, which is IMHO the first and most important job of a package
> > management system.
> That's actually not true. dpkg and rpm do not define dependencies, they
> allow packages to specify them. The difference is that Debian has very
> good and strict policies on how to use those dependencies and other
> distributions do not.

I should prolly research before posting such, but:

Perhaps the ``good and strict [dependancy] policies'' could be part of
the LSB, too.  

A package name registry at the LSB would be nice, so alienated RPMs could
be _cleanly_ used.  (Using RPMs right now is akin to roulette.ru .)

						- chad

Chad Miller <cmiller@surfsouth.com>  | If you keep your mind sufficiently 
unix brujo, shutterbug, bookworm     | open, people will throw a lot of 
URL: http://web.chad.org/home/       | rubbish into it.  --William Orton

Reply to: