Re: Packaging and installation
Jeffrey Watts wrote:
> > If LSB decides RPM is just fine only for LSB-related
> > programs/libraries/etc, then what we are doing is pushing the distro
> > world toward RPM for everything.
>
> Nick, I don't know where you've been, but RPM _is_ the standard. Most 3rd
> party software out there that is packaged is packaged for RPM. The
> current state of affairs hurts the smaller distributions. The LSB would
> _improve_ the state of affairs by allowing ISVs to develop software that
> would run on more systems than just Red Hat. This is a good thing for
> everyone (including Red Hat).
>
Sorry to drag up this old thread, but this issue isnt going to go away
by ignoring it.
You (and the LSB) are suggesting that RPM should be the default package
format seemingly on the basis that its more widely used.
My guess is that the biggest reason that more 3rd party developers
create rpm packages is becasue of redhats image, i seriously doubt 3rd
party develoeprs investigate the technical merits of rpm's v's debs' v's
??? and then decide to produce only one.
People arent going to change package formats to something they consider
inferiour, or as flawed as their curent system.
If there is a clearly superier packaging system then the LSB should
support that and that alone, if there are number of packaging systems
that each have different flaws and benefits then the LSB should
recognise all these different packaging systems as having a valid
purpose, but recognise that they are not ideal.
I dont see how the LSB can ever succeed if it is based on a popularity
contest rather than technical merit.
The LSB is shooting itself in the foot by alienating non-RPM supporters
Glenn
Reply to: