Re: Package System specification
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, David Cantrell wrote:
> >> be dropped. Instead, a common installed-software database and package
> >> naming scheme be proposed instead. This way, each distribution can keep
> >i don't see any standard of /installation tools/ with a
> >database description. We really need to adopt a standard package
> >manager and not only a description of standard programs.
> If a standard tool should be adopted for LSB-compliant systems, then
> the tool should be as simple as possible to avoid compatibility
> problems between distributions. RPM is nice in some respects, but
> does a lot of things that make it difficult to support under non-RPM
> based distributions.
you don't have to support the rpm utility directly. you only have to
support the rpm package format, i.e. knowing how to unpack it and install
it in the right location correctly and (most likely) how to remove it
correctly. a tool like alien and your local package managment system can
do this just fine. I've installed rpm's on my debian box this way w/o
problems in respect to dpkg (though problems in respect to libs and such,
which is exactly what the lsb is here to solve).