Re: Comments: Draft spec and package format/naming
Donnie Barnes wrote:
>
> While I understand the sentiment of the original post on this topic,
> I can't agree with it. When RPM was designed things like package
> naming were thought about in great detail. I'd rather hear what's
> *wrong* with the current naming scheme than what's *right* about
> your new one. I don't care much about the extension, but things
> like release numbers are important. Limiting yourself to triplets
> is, well, limiting.
Fair enough (maybe), but where can I find the details on the current schemes?
I tried the Debian and Red Hat sites, and the specs for their package formats
aren't exactly staring you in the face. Just because something is a de facto
(read RPM) standard doesn't mean that it's best, it is worth examining the
limitations of .rpm and .deb to see if things can be improved.
Additionally, from what I've noticed when installing a new RPM, only config
files are preserved, binaries are overwritten (at least as default), this
means that if the new package is broken, I have to reinstall the old package,
ie have two versions of a package floating around, this is opposed to
uninstalling the new package. It's no good assuming that you will never get a
broken package because you will.
James
Reply to: