Re: Package System specification
David Cantrell wrote:
> >> 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.
It needs to be. There is no way to make it reliable otherwise.
> 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.
No, it shouldn't, because the lowest common denominator is far too low,
in no small part due to the existence of the distribution you have in
your .sig file.