On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 04:43:32PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > I agree with you 100% -- except you left out a few points which explain how > they made the decision. > > a) there are 3 established dists that use rpm plus numerous small ones
so? *ALL* dists include ar, tar and gzip. > b) most proprietary software, if released for linux, is released as rpms > already so? > c) tied to b) companies like to deal with companies, RH provides this > d) as part of a) there are like 3 (maybe as high as 6 or more) to 1 more > people > using rpm than deb these are not good reasons. proprietary software developers from what ive seen make the WORST packages of anyone, even the crap you find in /contrib directories. LSB would have been far better off defining .tar.gz as the package format, and that proprietary crap go in its own directory in /opt. since proprietary developers never even come close to following any sort of filesystem standard keeping them in a self contained mess is the only sensible thing to do. > yes we all dislike rpm for our own reasons. however the decision that the lsb > made does make sense. The lsb is not meant to help you or me. It is meant to > help companies support linux. companies understand RH and rpm better than > they > do debian. Other than Progeny I can not name any company that supports Debian > today. Do a quick count of the ones that support RH or RH based dists (plus > SuSE and its bastard rpms). and none of this is any reason for us to abandon our packaging system, we should provide alien as always and ignore this. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
pgp9CzoUjfsL6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
