Re: RFC
On 15 Mar 2000, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> Debian is at least here in Europe quite common (although I personally
> do know Redhat better, I've only recently started to use Debian more
> often) and it is not enough just to have a "standard", it also has to
> make sense.
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.
> RPM imposes this /usr-bloat, since packages seldom make differences
> between "system as delivered" and absolutely unimportant stuff.
I think you are confusing "RPM" and "Red Hat". RPM doesn't force packages
to be in /usr. In fact, RPM supports relocatable packages, and a well
written /etc/rpmrc can overcome many differences between distributions.
> This is a discussion list and opinions are welcomed on most discussion
> lists.
I agree, and I should have worded my reply differently. I probably should
have stated instead that more people would take his ideas seriously if
they were more clearly laid out and complete with a suggested
implementation. I for one found them very hard to follow.
Thanks,
Jeffrey.
o-----------------------------------o
| Jeffrey Watts |
| watts@jayhawks.net o-------------------------------------------o
| Systems Programmer | "Protecting essential freedoms is always |
| Network Systems Management | a matter of restricting the actions that |
| Sprint Communications | would deny them. Remember, your freedom |
o----------------------------| to swing your fist ends at the tip of my |
| nose." |
| -- Richard Stallman |
o-------------------------------------------o
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC
- From: "Robert W. Current, Ph.D." <current@hel-inc.com>
- Re: RFC
- From: Jochem Huhmann <joh@gmx.net>
- References:
- Re: RFC
- From: Jochem Huhmann <joh@gmx.net>