Re: Packaging and installation
* Jeffrey Watts (watts@jayhawks.net) [001024 17:31]:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Nicholas Petreley wrote:
>
> > In other words, people aren't really saying "EVERYONE MUST USE RPM",
> > they're saying "LET'S STANDARDIZE ON RPM AND IF ANYONE DISAGREES, LET
> > THEM USE ALIEN". That way lies irrelevance and chaos.
>
> Nick, you are vastly misstating the situation.
>
No, I just wasn't specific enough. You're saying to use RPM
package format. And if someone wants to install the file
on a Debian system, then they need to either use RPM (which
simply doesn't work, since the RPM database doesn't contain
all the necessary dependency information if that user has
used any other system like .deb) or alien (which doesn't
work, because alien is far from perfect and it screws up
the installation at times.)
> What you're arguing for is something that is outside of the current LSB's
> scope.
Then we need to expand the scope. Why has someone put an
arbitrary artificial limit on LSB that it can only document
what GNU/Linux already does? That's just plain silly if it
doesn't help or encourage portability across distros, which
is ALSO the written mission of LSB.
> We're trying to standardize what's _in_ a GNU/Linux distribution,
> not HOW the distribution is set up. We're not about to dictate how folks
> do value-add, we just want a common baseline so software is portable.
Oh, hogwash.
And before you object, note that it is not at all what LSB
is doing. FHS 2.1, for example, is something that none of
the GNU/Linux distros do. Yet we're (RIGHTLY) expecting
them to change their distros to conform to FHS 2.1. Why
stop there if we can solve other problems, too?
> Now, I think you're idea has merit, but what you're asking for is a system
> that would be unacceptable to many distributions (especially ones like
> Slackware, that don't use package management). It is not LSB's mission to
> dictate or provide a package _management system_. That's a side project.
Then we need to explain to them why it is not only
acceptable, but necessary. And please understand that I'm
not suggesting we dictate a package management system. I'm
suggesting we dictate a package installation protocol (or
API, as it has been described elsewhere). Distros can
implement the program that uses the API any way they wish.
There's a LOT of room to add value there.
> I'm sorry if what I've said has come across as "we've already decided on
> RPM so tough, go away". That's not how I meant it. I meant it more like
> "we've covered this topic in depth and RPM was the best solution by far".
Then we obviously haven't discussed it enough.
> The fact that most of the folks responding to this thread don't realize
> that we're talking about the RPM _format_, and not the _package management
> system_ serves to illustrate my point perfectly.
Of course we understand that. Perhaps we're not explaining
our position well enough.
> By the way, is it "Nick" or "Nicholas"? I seem to see both used...
Either is fine. I get called a whole lot worse. ;-)
-Nick
--
**********************************************************
Nicholas Petreley Caldera Systems - LinuxWorld/InfoWorld
nicholas@petreley.com - http://www.petreley.com - Eph 6:12
**********************************************************
.
Reply to: