Re: .rpm? .lsb??
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 03:11:41PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Quite frankly, .tgz isn't good enough for just about anything.
Why? Because it provides no out-of-band data?
> If the goal is to be binary compatibility, there needs to be a
> standard package distribution format, and like it or not, RPM has
> become the de facto standard, and I think it is best making it a de
> jure standard with proper specification.
Not really, as you touch on in the last part of your next paragraph:
> Specifically, I think LSB should standardize the package format for
> a *specific* version of RPM -- perhaps with extensions to make it
> more multivendor friendly -- since RPM has had far too many forwards
> compatibilty problems in the past.
There are multiple, conflicting standards for RPM. These standards vary
over time, and they vary from vendor to vendor.
I'd classify RPM as a defacto standards conflict.
> That doesn't mean that distributions need to use RPM, it just means
> they should be able to handle third-party RPM/LSB packages.
Of course, this would be true for any such recommendation.