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


På 2000-Mar-15 klokka 19:45:41 -0500 skrivet Robert W. Current, Ph.D.:

: Jeffrey Watts wrote:
: > I agree, but a common package format is desirable, and RPM is adequate
: > enough technically, and it has the dominant mindshare.  It makes an
: > excellent choice for a standard.
: I disagree.  Maybe writing to the RPM database should be considered for
: standardization, but not endorsing RPMs.  Maybe working within RPM
: development to make the accounting widely readable and manageable for
: all packaging systems, would be good, but not endorsing RPM.

Why not?  RPM is available now, it works, people use it, and Jeff
Johnson has done and continues to do a fantastic job of managing and
integrating needs from all sorts of camps (including non-Linux ones)
while keeping a clear vision of RPM's goals and design.  The only major
shortcoming in RPM that i'm aware of is the severe lack of current

The only other currently existing packaging system worth the same salt
is Debian's, with which i have little enough experience that i cannot
properly criticize it.

In short:  RPM is (a) available, (b) proven, (c) widely used, (d)
technically capable, and (e) actively supported and developed.  I can
see little room or rationale for discarding it.

jim knoble

Reply to: