Re: Packaging

["Robert W. Current" <current@hel-inc.com>]

Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> 
> "Robert W. Current" <current@hel-inc.com> writes:
> 
> > I would like to raise the issue of pitfalls in defining RPM as the
> > "mandated" packaging system for the LSB.  Although I will concede that
> > RPM is fairly standard, it is potentially harmful to impose a packaging
> > standard.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> 1. We need to define a standard way for packages to be installed.  If
>    you can't install software, you can't run it.
> 
> 2. At this time, the best method for this is RPM.  (That means: the
>    RPM binary format and probably a wrapper command named something
>    like "install-lsb-package".)
> 
> (Everyone at our December meeting agreed with this, including the
> Debian presence.)

Then, I would like to read more about how depencancy checking will be
resolved on systems that primarly use other packaging methods.  (eg, how
does the ISV check for a library set on a system with all .deb packages
when they install thier .rpm?)

Is this documented somewhere yet, I haven't found it.

 
> > Can this be avoided by an investigation a standardization effort in the
> > packaging community itself?  For example, can we bring representatives
> > from the different packaging application developers to a single forum to
> > discuss a method of sharing a common "packing accounting system"  ??
> 
> People from Red Hat and Debian are working on something, but we're not
> planning on waiting for it to be completed.  If they decide to bring
> that effort under the LSB, it would be okay with me, but that's their
> decision.

Great news to hear :-)  sadly under publicised I guess.  Hope more than
those two are talking.  If a forum is set up on that, I'd be very
interested in reading about thier progress.  Got a pointer/url or
something?  Is the table open for other packaging software developers to
enter?