Re: Package System specification
>> And you only gain these features on a 100% RPM-based system. So what's
>> the point?
>The point is that the vast majority of people andvendors _want_ these
>features. If your distribution doesn't support features like dependencies
>and signed packages that's fine - use rpm2cpio to just get the files.
And that's fine, but it shouldn't be in the standard because not all of
those features are supported across distributions.
>Oh, also, this isn't about standardizing on RPM the package manager,
>complete with database - this is about standardizing on the _format_ - you
>can easily convert the RPM format to Debian packages or tarballs. IIRC
>'alien' will even preserve the dependencies for Debian (but don't quote me
There's really no difference there. If you specify RPM as the package format,
then you are also saying RPM is the standard packaging system. Converters
exist, but will not necessarily convert EVERYTHING between formats. Say you
run Debian and you get an RPM from a commercial vendor. You convert the RPM
to .DEB and install it. The installation goes fine, but you lost dependencies
during the conversion, and the program doesn't run because you didn't meet the
dependencies. So, the only way this will work is if all distributions fully
support/base-on RPM as their packaging system. And how are dependencies
going to flawlessly work unless we are all naming things exactly the same
(files and packages)?
The standardized package format should be lowest common denominator to allow
flawless installation and removal on all distributions.
David Cantrell | email@example.com
| Slackware Linux Project