Re: Packaging and installation spec wording
In message <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.33.0105161411120.1590-100000@asdf.capslock.lan>,
Mike A. Harris <mharris@opensourceadvocate.org> writes
>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.
>
We specify enough software, eg glibc, why not mention alien?
>
>>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.
>
Just because it's common that doesn't mean its the best. It also stifles
development - look at all the flame wars in the past. Okay, I'm beating
my own drum here, but we want an EXTENSIBLE API, not a frozen-in-stone
program.
--
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: