Re: AW: AW: RPM is hard to unpack

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

> [cutted]
> >> IMO the actual practice for the shipment of packages as *.tar.gz or
> >> *.tar.bz2 is better than using *.spm or *.rpm.
> >
> >Then a typical user cannot install them and no distribution can manage them
> >for removal and you might as well run windows 3.1
> 
> When "a typical user" is an End-User and not an SysAdmin then it is IMO no
> harm, because such an user may not install a package by default.

I think you need to consider where Linux is heading, and therefore what
the LSB must handle. On windows 98 for example anyone owning a computer
can reasonably expect to get a CD-ROM program installed and probably 
also uninstalled/

LSB distributions need a single standard packaging format that will contain
not only the programs but also the dependancies, information about requirements
and architectures, lists of documentation, install/removal scripts including
cross module handling.

For the LSB packaging format you should be thinking wholly in terms of an
end user who administrates their own machine (not by choice in many cases)
who will be firing up a GUI app, clicking 'install new package', hitting
OK to the insert CD rom prompt and then clicking on an icon to install
a given package.

If its any more complex than that its a lose

Alan