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
>deb.
I would take "alien" right out.
... "it may possibly use other software that can convert to RPM
format".
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: