Re: LSB Compliance + DEB vs. RPM
Hi,
Quoting Jiri Klouda (jk@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz):
> This is actually better idea. We would just need to make some
> way (switch) how to make RPM/DPKG to ask this database about
> the true dependencies and what the system actually really
> provides.
<snip solution>
We're adding .rpm support to allow third party software to be installed
'seamlessly' on a Debian system.
The dependency problem would arise for third-party software that is
binary-only, or someone would probably make .debs for it, i presume.
I think it's a bad idea, and against Debian policy and philosophy, to alter
the packaging format we use, to facilitate binary-only-crap installations.
This is not a small change. Adding lines to the package description files
makes the complete distribution grow quite a lot.
Personally, i resent the idea of doing work to make things easier for
binary-only software vendors.
Probably this whole problem can be solved the easiest and fastest by not
modifying anything in our packaging scheme, and just having the third
parties say 'you need libfoo and bar-utils for this', and have the user
install this, before they install the rpm.
If you're really into doing work for this, make a database containing all
binary-only-crap rpms, keep that up to date, and make a little tool to check
for rpm's, query the database, and install the depends for you.
Greets,
Robert
--
Linux Generation
encrypted mail preferred. finger rvdm@debian.org for my GnuPG/PGP key.
<zarq> wiggy, wat dacht je van 127.48.112.89
<Typh> ### Process 0 (host 127.48.112.89) terminated with return code 69
Reply to: