Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Charron" <email@example.com>
To: "debian isp" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
Sure it *can* do rpm, but my question is *should* we encourage the use
of rpm. One of Debian's main strength is in its packaging. The
reliability of apt-get, the thorough testing a package goes through to
make it into stable, etc. Do we really want to encourage people going
around and installing rpms on their systems all the time when more
appropriate debian packages are already out there?
I would much prefer the LSB to support .deb as an alternative then to
have the rpm support provided by Debian be what "squeaks" it by for
certification. After all, if you're getting support from an LSB
certified tech they might just say "install this rpm..." rather then
know the more appropriate solution for debian (which might just be "grab
this deb from the archive").
I can see what you mean... I agree that IMHO Debs are far superior to RPMs
As for the LSB certified tech saying "install this rpm...", well, owing to
the Open Source nature of things, in theory there could be a multitude of
package managers and such. I don't think many of the average "techs" would
know all these package managers. So yes... it isn't an ideal/optimal
solution to use RPMs, but at least it would work.
As I mentioned, I'm not so interested in the technical merits of the
issue... I'm most concerned about Debian and certification. Because with
more and more vendors supporting Linux, I can see that they will be
turning to "certified" distros to ease their tech support issues.
I really hope that those of us in the commercial sectors won't be forced
to use other distros, just because Debian refuses to get certified.