[EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Bonser) writes:
> Uhm, I actually LIKE the idea of putting the different runlevel rc.*
> directories under rc.d but that is just me, I guess. Keeps /etc a
> little less cluttered.
>
And it would introduce a major new level of compatibility between RPM
and "dpkg"! I wouldn't mind to have Debian adapt it's layout this way
either, especially since it would make the 'alien' package conversion
utility even more effective.
> Example, if dpkg is so much better than rpm, why not contribute to
> rpm to incorporate the needed features? Because some are going to
> resent the name rpm and the loss of .deb? What difference does it
> make in the practical sense as long as it gets the job done? As long
> as the technical superiority is still there, what difference does it
> make what it is called? On the other hand, are there any subtle
> changes that can be made to dpkg to make the format of .deb files a
> little closer to .rpm without sacrificing any technical superiority?
>
This is a very wortwhile question indeed. The Redhat people surely
won't want to change RPM given it's large user base. As it looks like
it still lacks all those features we do rely upon with "dpkg" that it
is actually impossible to switch over to RPM. But it's source is free
as well and could be enhanced by knowledgeable people to include all
the features needed with Debian and thus even add considerably to the
Linux world at large. But at this point i keep wondering if RPM does
feature an equivalent to 'debmake' which actually makes package
building quite a bit easier!?
Cheers, P. *8^)
--
Paul Seelig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies
Johannes Gutenberg-University - Forum 6 - 55099 Mainz/Germany
My Homepage in the WWW at the URL http://www.uni-mainz.de/~pseelig
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
