Packaging and installation

Jeffrey Watts watts at jayhawks.net
Tue Oct 24 17:29:54 PDT 2000


On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Nicholas Petreley wrote:

> In other words, people aren't really saying "EVERYONE MUST USE RPM",
> they're saying "LET'S STANDARDIZE ON RPM AND IF ANYONE DISAGREES, LET
> THEM USE ALIEN".  That way lies irrelevance and chaos.

Nick, you are vastly misstating the situation.

We're not saying that anyone must use RPM as a package manager.  We're
specifying that the packaging format for 3rd party apps must be RPM's
format.  Each distribution will provide a tool (like alien) that will
install this RPM _format_ package onto their system.  Remember that all a
.rpm package is is a cpio archive that includes software and organization
(install scripts, dependencies, etc).

What you're arguing for is something that is outside of the current LSB's
scope.  We're trying to standardize what's _in_ a GNU/Linux distribution,
not HOW the distribution is set up.  We're not about to dictate how folks
do value-add, we just want a common baseline so software is portable.

Now, I think you're idea has merit, but what you're asking for is a system
that would be unacceptable to many distributions (especially ones like
Slackware, that don't use package management).  It is not LSB's mission to
dictate or provide a package _management system_.  That's a side project.

I'm sorry if what I've said has come across as "we've already decided on
RPM so tough, go away".  That's not how I meant it.  I meant it more like
"we've covered this topic in depth and RPM was the best solution by far".  
The reason that most of us are reluctant to talk about it is that most
folks who bring this up want to re-evaluate the decision from the ground
up, instead of researching all of the issues involved and the dialogue
that has gone before.

I know that finding all the dialogue in the mail archives may be
difficult, but personally I'm not willing to argue with folks that haven't
done the footwork and don't know the issues involved.  Heck, I don't know
that much, but I lurked on this list for about 6 months before replying to
emails because I wanted to make sure I understood some of the issues.  I
didn't want to waste the time of folks whose time is precious.

The fact that most of the folks responding to this thread don't realize
that we're talking about the RPM _format_, and not the _package management
system_ serves to illustrate my point perfectly.  Debian GNU/Linux would
not give up their package manager or tools with the LSB.  They would just
have a tool to install 3rd party applications.

This is a FAQ.  However, I don't know of a FAQ for the LSB.  I think one
is VERY necessary, because these same miscommunications come up every
couple of months, and I wish there was a concise document that we could
direct folks to so we didn't have to keep discussing the same thing over
and over again.  I understand your frustration, and I'm sorry I didn't
spend more time explaining my statements.

By the way, is it "Nick" or "Nicholas"?  I seem to see both used...

Thanks for your patience,
Jeffrey.

o-----------------------------------o
| Jeffrey Watts                     |
| watts at jayhawks.net         o-----------------------------------------o
| Systems Programmer         | "Proprietary system advocates aren't    |
| Network Systems Management |  evil or stupid.  They are the victims. |
| Sprint Communications      |  They have a disease and they need      |
o----------------------------|  help."                                 |
                             |  -- Donald B. Marti Jr.                 |
                             o-----------------------------------------o




More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list