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

[devzero2000]

On 12/31/08, Jeff Johnson <n3npq at mac.com> wrote:

>
>  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.
>

Yes, it was. The empty rpm was  a - bad - conseguence of the proprietary
Installer, Installshield.
In every case then I have cancelled all, and I have done a "true" webshphere
rpm. At least not so  wrong.....

Regards







>   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/20081231/624efdff/attachment.htm