Re: Package System specification
>> 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.
>What file format do I put on my CD. I want the tools for it and I need to know
>to the byte what is there and it must then work with every LSB compliant
>box for that architecture (or all archs if it has no binaries).
>We need a single file format. The intent of specifying a file format not a
>tool set was that people wouldnt always want to turn their entire distribution
>into the LSB format. By specifying a file format only its acceptable to
>import an LSB format package, reprocess it (eg with alien) and install it
>in native format and manageable with native tools for the distribution.
And this makes sense, it's using RPM (or any other package manager) that I
think is not necessary. If the sepcification is written to where commercial
vendors can say "Our product will run on any LSB 1.x system...", then doesn't
that accomplish the goal? Using RPM will lock vendors and end users into
it, even if there are third party conversion utilities and so forth.