Re: Packaging and installation
> This post has for me clarified the situation wonderfully. Let me state
> clearly what is wrong with the current position.
> EITHER we are arguing about package format
> OR we are arguing about dependency management.
Well we're arguing about many things, but the rpm-related part of the
spec is attempting to address package format.
> Nick's point and mine is "What is the point of being LSB compliant?" As
> I see it, if you are correct in saying that the whole argument is about
> file formats, then all the LSB guarantees is that a package will
> "install" (for a random value of "install"). THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES
> WHATSOEVER THAT THE DEPENDENCIES WILL BE MET AND THE PACKAGE WILL
> ACTUALLY WORK!
If the package is only dependent on features in the LSB specification
(which it needs to be to LSB compliant) and the distribution which the
person is installing the package onto offers those features (which it
needs to, to be LSB compliant) then it will work.
> Nick has pointed out that it is possible to install a package which
> relies on ncurses, on an LSB compliant system (which guarantees ncurses
> support), and you still have a 50/50 chance that the program will crash
> and burn when you try to run it.
You're confusing the LSB specification with the LDPS. Please stop
> In those circumstances, WHERE IS THE ADVANTAGE OF RPM OVER TGZ? There
> aren't any!
Infrastructure for (un)installation scripts is just one.
On the subject of dependencies, if you manage to turn your ideas into
an actual implementation which you can demonstrate works in real life
then I'm sure there will be a lot more interest from people.