Re: Packaging stuff
I admit since I have not been following this on every letter this may have
been mentioned. Why is the lsb concerned with packages? Anything that
the lsb comes out with needs to be package independent. There are at
least 3 package formats out there now and they all have there loyal
followers. LSB should not even look at the package systems. anything
done acording to standards should be done differently.
But like I stated above, I may be all wet here.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Rahul Dave wrote:
> I got this from you:
> > From: Rahul Dave <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:43:35 -0400 (EDT)
> > Read the proposal I made
> > http://reno.cis.upenn.edu/~rahul/standards/packrdf/
> > ..the basic idea is to
> > aggregate a dependency graph on the fly from rpm database,
> > deb database, and say, for example .tgz database. RDF is good for this,
> > and in the case of rpm, we already have an implementation. Now my
> > configure can use one dependency from rpm, and one from deb, and the
> > next rpm install can use a dependency from this configure(or oracle
> > installer, or whatever
> > There's an amazing amount of hand-waving in your proposal. All the RDF
> > is at the moment is a way of storing the existing Provides and Requires
> > information of RPM's in XML. This doesn't address the need to
> > standardize what is actually *in* Provides and Requires line in either
> > an RPM or the RDF. It's merely a different way of storing that
> > information separately from the RPM. Hence, it doesn't even come close
> > to addressing the problem.
> I'd be the first to agree with the statement that there is lot of handwaving.
> But a common XML with a common API to access it is step 1. Step 2 is to
> do a "Dewey Decimal" for packages...I dont address that at all
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email firstname.lastname@example.org