Re: Package System specification
>> 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).
Yes, but the RPM format is far too complex for a standard, IMHO. In
Slackware, we offer "rpm2targz" which converts an RPM to a .tgz file.
Users have reported successful and unsuccessful installations of these
converted RPMs. I have also had varying success.
The standard format and package tool should be as simple as possible
so that the package converters that distributors and third parties
make work without any problems (or with minimal problems).
What's the main reason this is being done anyway? I'm assuming it's
for commercial vendors to easily offer Linux versions of their software
and have it installable on all of the distributions. I just think
selecting RPM is way too much of an overkill for such as standard. It
will introduce far too many more problems than it solves.
David Cantrell | email@example.com
| Slackware Linux Project