Re: Package System specification

[David Cantrell <david@slackware.com>]

>> 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.
>
>Only into the binary package format, which is 
>
>1.	a cpio archive of the binaries
>
>	Well we need this anyway
>
>2.	install/remove scripts
>
>	We need these too
>
>3.	Permission data & file types
>
>	Obviously essential
>
>4.	Descriptions/license info
>
>	Clearly importat
>
>5.	Dependancy data
>
>	Necessary for any real setup to protect the users from errors
>
>6.	Cryptographic Signatures
>
>	Critical
>
>So I dont see anything in there locking people into the RPM tools or into
>the rpm format. You can put an rpm together without usign rpm . Alien has
>already demonstrated the file format is convertable.

So is the LSB going to have an entry for Alien now?  :)

The big problem with relying on a converter is that vendors can't easily
script their installation.  Example:

I obtained a copy of Metrowerks CodeWarrior.  The parts of CW come as RPM
files.  There is an installation script that runs RPM to install the packages.
This failed because I didn't have RPM.  I had to manually convert the packages
and install them by hand.

BTW, this was to test CW on Slackware.  Not because I was going to use it for
development.  :)

   David Cantrell | david@slackware.com
                  | Slackware Linux Project