Hi, > Frankly, I disagree with the subject. LSB allows the distribution to > use a different (i.e. dpkg) packaging format than rpm. More > importantly, rpm is the packaging format used by every other > significant Linux distribution. While I agree that a million flies may > be wrong, as far as I have understood, there are no significant > functional differences between dpkg and rpm. Package dependencies may > be declared explicitly in rpm as well, as well as functional > dependencies (Requires: MTA). Debconf is not a package format issue, > but a policy issue. While dpkg uses fairly robust text file format, > rpm uses Berkeley DB's, which are very established as well, and > somewhat faster and more compact than dpkg text files. Etc etc. Both
Yes it's true that RPM is actually, faster than DEB, but when you would like to hand-hack a package's status information, and you do not have a copy of 'maximum(or minimum?) rpm' in your hand, you would then love deb. moreover, i know you won't forget ian and debra, right? :p > packaging formats have their pros as well as cons. What ensures the > high quality of Debian, is its policy. Still, a packaging format > should not be seen as a religious issue. Well, the high quality of debian, eh, is true, that it is ensured by the strict policy and the kind and true heart of hackers contribution.. (i think i have done something, though not much, as a lamer..) but still, i don't want to see deb comes down and die. however, I'm not going to start a holy war (tm). > What I would like to see, in the light of LSB, would be that > > 1) A transparent way to install LSB-compliant rpms in Debian is > implemented. Preferably one should be able to install rpms with 'dpkg' > command line tool, although an automatic format transform with 'alien' > could be performed behind the scenes. This is outrangous! I think we should not do this to make it LSB compliant, however, if you would say to make this 'lam3r-proof' it would be okay for me kind of religious issue here, though. > 2) Assuming that I am not misinformed about the functional > compatibility of dpkg and rpm, a LONG TERM goal for transforming > Debian to rpm base is issued. This would include adding rpm support > for all Debian package management tools, and transition tools for the > database contents, etc. I would really be sad if deb is going to die. and this would really be starting to catch fire, mind your speech, buddy :) > I am sorry if I brought up a inflammable issue, but I'd really like to > see some (civil, positive) discussion around the subject. Standards > (usually) are a good thing, and especially a common packaging format > for all Linux distributions would help acceptance and adoption of > Linux, and more importantly, Debian. Yes, Debian is always conforming to standard, but i hate somebody who make a standard which is ourageous, like microsoft. (the kind "IE4.0 HTML" is a very good example illustrating it). However, Microsoft do have good products (like this Outlook express i'm using). > Best regards, -- k h a o s * lamer new name, new look, new ftp: linuxxxxx.dyn.dhs.org (change FOUR letter) upload something before downloading, or your class C IP banned. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matti Airas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lamer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; <debian-devel@lists.debian.org> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 4:33 AM Subject: Re: Time to fight for our beloved DEB format!
