Re: Time to fight for our beloved DEB format!
Am 02. Jul, 2001 schwäzte Holger Rauch so:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, der.hans wrote:
> > Yes, the RPM package management tools have always really, really
> > sucked.
>
> As far as I understand, the LSB only states that the archive format
> is supposed to be RPM in the future. Whether tools are bad or not, does
> not necessarily have to be related to the archive format, IMHO.
Most true. However, I'm looking for the advantages/disadvantages of the
package formats themselves. The advantages/disadvantages of the packaging
tools are obvious. Debian has the advatages, rpm-based distros have the
disadvantages ;-). I've only started to package debs. Never packages rpms.
Just wanting to know good and bad aspects of the package formats themselves.
Since you brought up the subject, though...
From http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/swinstall.html:
The distribution itself may use a different packaging format for its own
packages, and of course it may use any mechanism for installing the LSB
conformant packages that is available.
From http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/pkgtools.html:
The LSB does not specify the interface to the tools used to manipulate
LSB conformant packages. Each conforming distribution will provide
documentation for installing LSB packages.
I do have a question about this one, though.
From http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/x12251.html:
Packages must depend on a dependency "lsb". They may not depend on
other system-provided dependencies. If a package includes "Provides"
it must only provide a virtual package name which is registered to that
application.
Last night that seemed to mean that .debs could Provides lsb- packages.
Today I'm not sure. Being able to Provides lsb packages might make this much
easier for Debian :).
ciao,
der.hans
--
# der.hans@LuftHans.com home.pages.de/~lufthans/ www.DevelopOnline.com
# "... the social skills of a cow on acid." - der.hans
Reply to: