Re: Package System specification
David Cantrell <email@example.com> writes:
> I was reading through the 0.1 written spec on www.linuxbase.org and
> came to the section talking about software installation. It stated
> that the current plan was to go with RPM as a package format. Those
> who didn't like that were to propose an alternative.
> Well, I'd like to propose an alternative. :)
> First off, I agree with standards specification. It's something that
> should be done so that commercial vendors and end users won't go nuts
> moving between distributions. But, I don't think it's necessary to specify
> As for the package format specification, I'd like to propose that it
> be dropped. Instead, a common installed-software database and package
> naming scheme be proposed instead. This way, each distribution can keep
> the packaging system they like and we offer some level of compatibility
> between the distributions.
> I'd like to get a discussion about this going, so please followup. :)
> Also, I apologize if this has been discussed in great detail before. I'm
> still reading the list archives and haven't quite caught up yet.
IIRC, the RedHat and Debian people are working on such a proposal (a
new common package format) privately. Unforunately, I'm not sure who
the mebers of this "packaging cabal" are, and I for one would like to
see them open this up a bit.
Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo - firstname.lastname@example.org - http://jakob.kaivo.net/