Re: Packaging and installation
I knew this would be the response, which is why I haven't
bothered to address it here for so long.
-Nick
* Jeffrey Watts (watts@jayhawks.net) [001023 15:59]:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Nicholas Petreley wrote:
>
> > As I'm sure you know already, I wrote about packaging in a recent
> > column. But I wanted to address a different aspect of it here, in
> > hopes that we'll throw out (IMO the incorrect) idea of declaring RPM
> > as a standard format and instead adopt a more useful, flexible and
> > constructive approach to the problem.
>
> Hasn't this been beaten to death by now? I think that most agree that
> while using RPM may not be the best solution, it's definitely the most
> practical solution for now.
>
> I would think that our time would be better spent on discussing things
> that we don't have done yet. I'm not against discussing this, but most of
> the time the only folks that participate in a discussion on RPM are those
> that have some personal problem with RPM and/or Red Hat.
>
> My advice would be to stay the course and get this sucker done. :-)
>
> Jeffrey.
>
> o-----------------------------------o
> | Jeffrey Watts |
> | watts@jayhawks.net o-----------------------------------------o
> | Systems Programmer | "If Raymond is Pepsi, with fashionable |
> | Network Systems Management | marketing, Stallman is the original |
> | Sprint Communications | Coke, and the choice of a Gnu |
> o----------------------------| generation..." |
> | -- Lloyd Wood, on ESR and RMS |
> o-----------------------------------------o
>
>
--
**********************************************************
Nicholas Petreley Caldera Systems - LinuxWorld/InfoWorld
nicholas@petreley.com - http://www.petreley.com - Eph 6:12
**********************************************************
.
Reply to: