[lsb-discuss] Some questions on the LSB build environment

Anthony W. Youngman pixie at thewolery.demon.co.uk
Mon Feb 10 14:56:53 PST 2003

In message <1044572788.2719.44.camel at linux.local>, Mike Hearn
<mike at theoretic.com> writes

major chomping here ...
>I should make it clear from the start that I don't really care about replacing 
>RPM or DEB.
>Distros can and should use whatever packaging system floats their boat. The 
>philosophy of
>autopackage is to integrate and work with the native packaging system when 
>possible. So,
>I don't think "evolving" rpm or deb should be a goal. It's certainly not one of 
>mine.... [1]

It wasn't one of mine either. The problem is that doesn't fit well with
the LSB, which is to codify existing practices.
>   Your ideas only work if there is a package management API, which will most
>   likely not make it into LSB 1.0.  It is a very sticky and very political
>   issue, and will most likely not be resolved for a while.  Remember,
>   technical superiority usually loses to practicality.
>This is a real issue. Is design-by-committee really the best way to produce a 
>to this problem? I dunno. My original plan was simply to write a solution for 
>making portable
>packages that was so kickass it eventually became a de-facto standard (though it 
>actually rely on being popular in order to work). Slightly naive perhaps.
>Obviously a solution that doesn't involve the distro makers has problems of its 
>hence the fact that I'm interested in this debate.
>Personally I lean more towards the "create a new system" mindset. One 
>possibility is simply
>to say, well, if somebody can come to either the LSB or the FSG with a working 
>solution that
>everybody at least accepts, then that's what we adopt. As opposed to attempting 
>to actually
>design and build it here. But I don't know if that's a good way to do things. On 
>other hand, most of the systems I've seen so far (rpm, dpkg and my own) have 
>strong points
>that could be merged. I'm not just saying that because it sounds nice, I have 
>thought it
>through and afaict it would be possible. But possible != desirable necessarily.
>   If we can define a
>   middleware it achieves our aim of encouraging competition in package
>   managers.
That's my aim too. I've cc'd myself at work - count me in on any work
you want to come up with. I think we've discussed before, haven't we?
You've got a copy of my spec for middleware?

Anthony W. Youngman <pixie at thewolery.demon.co.uk>
'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the 
thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man 
lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998
Visit the MaVerick web-site - <http://www.maverick-dbms.org> Open Source Pick

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list