Re: Package System specification
On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 10:32:12PM -0700, David Cantrell wrote:
> 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.
Maybe you could share with us what those things are. If there are really
features in rpm that make life too difficult for other non rpm-based
distributions to support, then a LSB-compliant rpm could support a subset of
the current rpm capabilities. I think this is a much more reasonable solution
then to simply drop rpm and go for a yet-to-be-invented tool.