Re: Time to fight for our beloved DEB format!
On Sunday 01 July 2001 23:50, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[🔎] b-8WM.A.umC.qI2P7@murphy>, Mariusz Przygodzki <email@example.com>
> >On Sunday 01 July 2001 18:29, Timothy H. Keitt wrote:
> >> Instead of having, for example, WordPerfect for RedHat,
> >> WordPerfect for Debian, WordPerfect for YourDistributionHere, you simply
> >> have WordPerfect for LSB.
> >I am sorry but it will be not work in this case because you may have WP
> > for LSB for RH vX, WP for LSB for Debian vX etc. etc (every time the same
> > version of WP).
> >The unified packaging format can not solve problems with some applications
> > in some Linux distros automagically but may only cause additonal problems
> > for people who try to install and use packages from different distros in
> > the same format.
> In other words you totally misunderstand the LSB !!!
> It is called the Linux STANDARD BASE. Ie a minimum amount of guaranteed
> facilities. So you WILL only need WP for LSB.
> May I suggest you look at what the LSB are trying to achieve, and stop
> believing all the ill-informed rubbish that flies around masquerading as
> comment :-(
Calm down and take tea, young man :)
When I've mentioned about incompabilities between distros then I've mentioned
about not only packaging format. I can only repeat that you expect to much if
you think that common packaging format is the only problem of differences
Please try to use something different than RH, i.e. Debian.
> All this stuff about rpm simply requires that (1) alien is guaranteed to
> work (which promptly eliminates a large amount of rpm functionality) and
> (2) that distros provide a way of installing such rpms. So a simple
> script for debian that invokes alien followed by deb (or whatever it is)
> is all the debian would require for compliance. (This para might not be
> QUITE right, but it's a damn sight closer than most of the rubbish
> flying around...)
Yeah, you are not quite right and your above example with deb package is very