Re: Package System specification

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>]

David Cantrell wrote:
> >
> >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.
> 

And this is a bad thing?  Seriously.  For a vendor to have to ship N
different file formats isn't going to look good for Linux.

RPM really is the de facto standard, like it or not.  We might as well
make it de jure and make it cleaner for the ISV.

	-hpa