Re: Packaging and installation
Glenn,
Your input is appreciated. This is a matter that we wrestled with in
coming to a conclusion that is more out of necessity than desire.
The plain un-assailable fact is that we all want ISVs and software
developers to port their software to Linux.
In the long term, Linux without commercial software support will lose out.
I have spent the past two years meeting with commercial software
development houses. I have repeatedly asked the question, "What is your
Linux stragey?". Time after time I have been brow beaten by companies that
did port to Linux but then found, in their words, "The Unix Wars - all
over again!". The key obstacles have been the lack of binary portability
across Intel Linux systems as well as the lack of uniformity in packaging.
Let's face it, RPM is far from ideal. It has flaws. Different Linux
distributions implement different features in RPM that essentially, from
the ISV perspective mean that to support just the commerncial Linux
distributions requires the same effort as supporting 5 or 6 different Unix
implementations. The cost and overhead of this is not worth it to many
large software houses. In other words - we all lose out!
The LSB had to start somewhere. We recognise that we are not going to
convert all the RPM based Linux distributions to deb. Not yet that is, and
probably not at any time soon.
Commercial software vendors have the notion that they can support their
software only on a professionally supported commercial operating system
platform. After much debat, debate that was open to all so that you too
could have had input, we settled for RPM v3 for now. There is a working
team that is working on defining a new packaging format that will
hopefully win the hearts and the commitments of the entire Linux
community. This will take some time to complete. Hopefully this will make
it into the next revision of the LSB Specifications some time after
version 1.0 is published.
I assure you that Red Hat's image had NOTHING at all to do with our
decision. We had representation from Red Hat, TurboLinux, Caldera, SuSE,
Mandrakesoft, Connectiva, Corel, and many more Linux distributions. We
listened to input from IBM, Sun, Pick Systems (now Rainig Data), and
others. We heard their side of the story and their needs. Please do not
assert that we have been pressured by Red Hat. The minutes of all meetings
are public record.
There is an urgent need to get more business applications on Linux. IF you
believe that you have something to offer in accelerating this goal then
please join our meetings and get involved, but please do not hold up the
release of LSB Spec. version 1.0 or the game will be over for commercial
deployment of Linux.
- John T.
---
| John H Terpstra, Caldera International, VP Technology
| E-mail: jht@caldera.com
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> 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
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-discuss-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
>
>
Reply to: