>>>>> "Sean" == Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> IMNSHO the LSB seriously erred on this, the .deb format makes
>> far more sense as a baseline package format standard then rpm
>> for the simple reason that the .deb format isn't really a
>> format, its just an ar archive with gzipped tarballs! those
>> formats are nearly the oldest *real* standards as you can get
>> with *nix. .deb can be extracted on ANY OS, even an old
>> decrepid proprietary UNIX host. a baseline standard package
>> format should be something that does not require special tools
>> to deal with, tar.gz and .deb meet that criteria, rpm does not.
>> you can for example extract a .deb on a stock slackware system,
>> not true of rpm. (unless slackware started including rpm in
>> the base since i last looked..)
>>
Sean> I agree with you 100% -- except you left out a few points
Sean> which explain how they made the decision.
I don't really see a particularly strong reason to be attached to deb
as a package format. I do see a reason to be attached to certain
features out of deb and to certain anti-features out of rpm, but I
thought the long-term LSB plan was to develop a package format. I
think we should compile the list of features and anti-features we need
and try to influence LSB rather than influencing decisions that I
believe we already had input into.
