Packaging

[Daniel Quinlan]

"Robert W. Current" <current at hel-inc.com> writes:

> I would like to raise the issue of pitfalls in defining RPM as the
> "mandated" packaging system for the LSB.  Although I will concede that
> RPM is fairly standard, it is potentially harmful to impose a packaging
> standard.

I disagree.

1. We need to define a standard way for packages to be installed.  If
   you can't install software, you can't run it.

2. At this time, the best method for this is RPM.  (That means: the
   RPM binary format and probably a wrapper command named something
   like "install-lsb-package".)

(Everyone at our December meeting agreed with this, including the
Debian presence.)

> Can this be avoided by an investigation a standardization effort in the
> packaging community itself?  For example, can we bring representatives
> from the different packaging application developers to a single forum to
> discuss a method of sharing a common "packing accounting system"  ??

People from Red Hat and Debian are working on something, but we're not
planning on waiting for it to be completed.  If they decide to bring
that effort under the LSB, it would be okay with me, but that's their
decision.

Dan