Re: Packaging and installation
In message <39F5A441.12EE390F@staffnet.com>, Wade Hampton
<whampton@staffnet.com> writes
>Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>
>> Is nobody else astonished that something so fundamental a standards issue
>> as packaging formats, that was first debated the moment the LSB started
>> more than two and a half years ago, is still being argued? This group has
>> made so little progress in that area that a call to practically start from
>> scratch is still taken seriously.
>>
>> The problem is not that the RPM approach doesn't (or, more correctly,
>> can't be made to) work. It's that this group has never reached a formal
>> consensus/vote/decree/whatever on a packaging architecture. Had it done so
>> ages ago (as Bodo suggests), resources could have been allocated to first
>> draw up an RPM spec that would have at least had all the RPM-using distros
>> on the same page. Debian programmers would have had an unambiguous target
>> to parse. Efforts such as LANANA could have been accepted as a formal part
>> of the LSB; having done that, this group could then address RPM's
>> deficiencies at a later date.
>VERY GOOD!
>
>I suggest we take a vote. The options are RPM or DEB?
>Once the vote is taken, the result would be the standard. All have
>pro's and con's. Once an existing format is agreed upon (say in 1
>week -- put hard time limit on it!), then address the shortcomings.
>
No. The options are NOT rpm or deb. There is a third option - a
mandatory API (which BY DEFINITION is compatible with both rpm AND deb).
My vote is for an API.
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999
Reply to: