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.
>I believe it is vital for the lsb project that there be a package format,
>with capabilities beyound that of tar. We want to build a shrink-wrap
>market, for Linux, so that customers can go to a shop and buy a product
>that will install on every LSB-compliant Linux. The data format for these
>binary products then must be standardized.
By having the LSB specify a package format for distributions to handle,
you leave installation, removal, and upgrading to the distribution. This
can only be handled flawlessly by the chosen system and not converters.
Instead, why doesn't the LSB actually make a specification that all
distributions can comply with without losing their unique qualities. As
it stands right now, I see the LSB becoming a Red Hat-based distribution
cookie cutter. It think that's going too far for a specification.
An RPM (last I checked) contained installation scripts, dependencies, checksums,
and the actual files that get written to the system. How are all of those
things going to work unless we all make the same exact system? Same package
names, same file locations, same versions of every program? At that point,
the only difference between one distribution and the next will be what packages
out of LSB we include.
The specification should be simple things like where the C library goes,
what basic commands should be present in /bin, things of this nature. Leave
installation and upgrading to the commercial vendor.
David Cantrell | firstname.lastname@example.org
| Slackware Linux Project