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

Re: [users] Re: Time to fight for our beloved DEB format!



On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:08:04AM +0200, Martin F. Krafft wrote:
> 
> sure, that would be a possiblity, but rather than merging and going
> with redhat (come on, they are walking micro$oft footsteps), DEB is
> very powerful and can easily exist by itself. a little
> cross-compatibility is needed, but rather than surrendering and
> converting to RPM, it should be the community's goal to establish DEB
> at least to be a second standard, causing vendors and distributors to
> package with DEB as well as RPM.
> 
> just my 2 pfennige. i would really hate to see DEB go away.

exactly, and alien provides any cross compatibility needed, someone
was also talking about a dpkg-rpm which would do the conversion more
on the fly (and i would hope always turn off --force-overwrite...).

i would still consider it utterly foolish for anyone to actually
install an rpm of any sort on a debian system, as i do now.  LSB does
not define hardly any policy about putting together decent packages so
the current /contrib hell of rpmland will not change.  

IMNSHO the LSB seriously erred on this, the .deb format makes far more
sense as a baseline package format standard then rpm for the simple
reason that the .deb format isn't really a format, its just an ar
archive with gzipped tarballs!  those formats are nearly the oldest
*real* standards as you can get with *nix.  .deb can be extracted on
ANY OS, even an old decrepid proprietary UNIX host.  a baseline
standard package format should be something that does not require
special tools to deal with, tar.gz and .deb meet that criteria, rpm
does not.  you can for example extract a .deb on a stock slackware
system, not true of rpm.  (unless slackware started including rpm in
the base since i last looked..)

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

Attachment: pgp5k3pCDl24M.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: