Re: [users] Re: Time to fight for our beloved DEB format!
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 09:04:04PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I'd have to check to see if file dependencies are actually in Maximum
> RPM, or whether it's a feature which is newer than the RPMv2 feature
They don't appear to be mentioned in Maximum RPM per say, however..
You just said RPMv2, which is what Maximum RPM describes. But the appendix
linked from the LSB actually describes RPMv3. Compare:
http://www.rpmdp.org/rpmbook/node9.html
'' The RPM of Today: Version 2 ''
http://www.rpmdp.org/rpmbook/node119.html
'' This appendix describes the most recent version of the RPM file format:
version 3. The file(1) utility can be used to see a package's file format
version. ''
So uh - who knows what is actually permitted. I sure don't have a clue. If
it's RPMv2 then I don't think there are file depends, but then again, the
only spec for the file format would seem to be 'see the RPM source'. If
it's RPMv3 then we don't have a complete description of it's capabilities
but at least we have a file format.. sort of.
Personally, I'd like to see chapter 13 removed from the spec, and
lsb-taskforce1 brought under management, and focus, to replace it with
something that actually has meaning. We can write a *proper* specifiction
that actually follows the spirit of what chapter 13 was clearly ment to
have.
> In any case, it was an oversight in that none of the people who
> reviewed the section knew that file dependencies where an issue that
I reviewed it, I knew, I brought it and lots of other issues up. That
resulted in lsb-taskforces 1 through 3 being formed, and then nothing was
accomplished. That was in December. 6 months later the spec was published
unchanged. What went wrong?
Now, your comment may be somewhat true for the rest of the spec, I haven't
heard that anyone tried to bring up any specific issues at least.
Jason
Reply to: