Am 02. Jul, 2001 schwäzte Holger Rauch so: > On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, der.hans wrote:
> > Yes, the RPM package management tools have always really, really > > sucked. > > As far as I understand, the LSB only states that the archive format > is supposed to be RPM in the future. Whether tools are bad or not, does > not necessarily have to be related to the archive format, IMHO. Most true. However, I'm looking for the advantages/disadvantages of the package formats themselves. The advantages/disadvantages of the packaging tools are obvious. Debian has the advatages, rpm-based distros have the disadvantages ;-). I've only started to package debs. Never packages rpms. Just wanting to know good and bad aspects of the package formats themselves. Since you brought up the subject, though... From http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/swinstall.html: The distribution itself may use a different packaging format for its own packages, and of course it may use any mechanism for installing the LSB conformant packages that is available. From http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/pkgtools.html: The LSB does not specify the interface to the tools used to manipulate LSB conformant packages. Each conforming distribution will provide documentation for installing LSB packages. I do have a question about this one, though. From http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/x12251.html: Packages must depend on a dependency "lsb". They may not depend on other system-provided dependencies. If a package includes "Provides" it must only provide a virtual package name which is registered to that application. Last night that seemed to mean that .debs could Provides lsb- packages. Today I'm not sure. Being able to Provides lsb packages might make this much easier for Debian :). ciao, der.hans -- # [EMAIL PROTECTED] home.pages.de/~lufthans/ www.DevelopOnline.com # "... the social skills of a cow on acid." - der.hans
