[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packaging and installation spec wording

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Doug Beattie wrote:

>One paragraph says:
>"The distribution itself may use a different packaging format for its
>own packages, and of course it may use alien or other mechanisms for
>installing the RPMv3 packages."
>It may be good to quote "alien" and give an example specifically for

I would take "alien" right out.

... "it may possibly use other software that can convert to RPM

Hard coding an application name in a standard in this manner is
not a good idea IMHO.

>I know there are many feeling on this, and I don't want to stir things
>up again as this was hashed out during the call on the 9th, but
>allowing one such example here may tend to tone down negative feedback
>from many in the community.

Personally, I think that we're all better off with ONE single
unified package format and package manager.  RPM is the most
widely used one, and so it makes the most sense IMHO.  I don't
think the standard even needs to reference conversion software,
other than perhaps to mention it exists.

Signature poll:  I'm planning on getting a 12 or 16 port autosensing
10/100 ethernet switch soon for home use, and am interested in hearing
others recommendations on what to buy.  Cost isn't as important as is
functionality and quality.  Any suggestions appreciated.

Reply to: