[packaging] Comment #22: re LSB 4.0 Core beta specification

Jeff Johnson n3npq at mac.com
Wed Dec 31 06:40:25 PST 2008


On Dec 31, 2008, at 9:22 AM, devzero2000 wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Dan Kegel <dank at kegel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Jeff Johnson <n3npq at mac.com> wrote:
> > I suggest that its time to (finally!) split LSB from RPM cleanly  
> by removing
> > every "RPM" identifier throughout the LSB 4.0 Core packaging  
> document.
>
> Except that ISVs don't want another packaging format.
> They want to ship .rpm's (and, possibly using alien, .deb's).
> They just want a way to make sure their .rpm's and .deb's will
> install and run everywhere.
>
> Personally I have not always found still a vendor of commercial  
> products that distributes always their products as a rpm package.  
> Rather it is the exception. Besides, also when this happens, they  
> are often of a very bad quality. For instance:
>
> - one want to make in  rpm something similar to "you accept the  
> license?"  E.g. An interactive install . Yep. So i have done a rpm  
> bundle of this.

(aside)
This is a very common RFE for RPM particularly from ISV's for years.

This issue can likely be automated within rpm in one of several ways.  
Likely the best way to
insturment a EULA dialog in a "batch installer" like RPM is to use  
keyutils,
which permits asynchronous invocation of a dialog script, with the  
response
returned in the keyutils kernel store. The doco in the keyutils package
has an example usage case that is quite straightforward.

Using embedded lua within RPM is another approach (grep -i license / 
usr/lib/rpm/macros
in @rpm5.org sources for most of what would be needed for a EULA  
dialog using lua).

>
> - Others install objects in% post, without rpm control.
> - some one else instead install "empty rpm" when installing the  
> software via propriety product: don't ask me way.

Let me guess: IBM WebSphere? I keep 3 "empty rpm" packages around in  
my rpmdb for amusement,
I haven't a clue why the packages were installed, there is no content  
whatsoever in the metadata.

>
>
> Conclusion.
>
> I spend a lot of my time to  packaging of proprietary products, with  
> theirs thousand problems (no fhs, security ecc.
>
> I think this is the BIG problem.
>

Feel free to point out any problems that you think need solving. I'm  
quite
sure the problems are more general than RPM packaging, even though
I've been talking only about how RPM could implement.

73 de Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20081231/4aaa9a22/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4664 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20081231/4aaa9a22/attachment.bin 


More information about the packaging mailing list