Re: [users] Re: Time to fight for our beloved DEB format!
> 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..)
>
I agree with you 100% -- except you left out a few points which explain how
they made the decision.
a) there are 3 established dists that use rpm plus numerous small ones
b) most proprietary software, if released for linux, is released as rpms already
c) tied to b) companies like to deal with companies, RH provides this
d) as part of a) there are like 3 (maybe as high as 6 or more) to 1 more people
using rpm than deb
yes we all dislike rpm for our own reasons. however the decision that the lsb
made does make sense. The lsb is not meant to help you or me. It is meant to
help companies support linux. companies understand RH and rpm better than they
do debian. Other than Progeny I can not name any company that supports Debian
today. Do a quick count of the ones that support RH or RH based dists (plus
SuSE and its bastard rpms).
Reply to: