Re: RPM is hard to unpack

[Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net>]

> The current "plan-of-record" is to specify RPM as the file format. It is
> supported either directly, or indirectly by the widest number of
> distributions, and so far, no one has pointed out any deficiencies.
> 
> There is a deficiency. It is very hard to unpack an rpm package without
> having rpm installed. Users of other OS'es are forced to use
> hexdump+dd+gzip+cpio or port rpm their systems, install it, initialize
> database etc.

Or to install rpm, or an rpm conversion tool such as alien. Any LSB
compliant system will have some kind of tools for this. Remember the LSB
focus is Linux and related platforms and end users. An LSB system will
always have an lsb package installer. A non LSB system will be able to
include any such lsb installer if it wishes. The spec will be open so
anyone can write a convertor for any format chosen. And finally the
LSB specifies a file format, it doesnt specify how a distribution uses
it internally - its unlikely Debian for example would switch to rpm 
internally, nor should it have to

> 1) That any package can be unpacked without using a specific package
> manager (even if some). It is Ok to require GNU tools for that, such as
> gzip.

rpm is a GPL licensed tool. So why is it different to gzip.

> 2) That any package can be identified as belonging to a specific
> distribution or as cross-disribution package without using a specific
> package manager.

This is true. It also should be done by naming convention (possibly
as well as other things). Naming is important as you don't want to 
download something to run tools on it to find its not what you want

ALan