> On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:25:46 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >The "other data" in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information,
> >installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address.
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proprietary to Debian...
Note to self: The d
>> On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:25:46 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>>
>> >The "other data" in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information,
>> >installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address.
>>
>> Proprietary to Debian...
^
That's a pretty flamboyant c
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Rev. Joseph Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Proprietary" -- what in the heck could possibly be proprietary about
> > Debian? We need to clear this confusing mess up NOW!!!
>
> As I meant it, "is not really meant to be used outside of Debian or at least
> dp
On Sat, 23 May 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > the same thing (while internally it does use .tgz and ar etc...
>
> I never said it was. I was pointing out that SLP could be.
i doubt it. tar doesn't need crap tacked onto the end of it.
> >The fact is that .tgz is great for archives (and backu
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then why discredit the idea, then point out all the niceties in your
> current prefered system when they aren't comparable at all?
For what it's worth, the debian control information has always been
present in tgz format, never in binary format. The old
At 13:12 -0700 1998-05-23, Steve Lamb wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 20:01:53 +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
>
>>Not really. Other than that it's the default and is more or less considered
>>standard so I left it that way.
>
>*chuckle* There are quite a few people in quite a few newsgroups tha
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 03:28:43PM -0400, Bonard B. Timmons III wrote:
> > The .deb is proprietary to Debian. =3Dp The installation and removal scri=
> > pts
>
> "Proprietary" -- what in the heck could possibly be proprietary about
> Debian? We need to clear this confusing mess up NOW!!!
As I m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 23 May 1998 20:01:53 +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
>Not really. Other than that it's the default and is more or less considered
>standard so I left it that way.
*chuckle* There are quite a few people in quite a few newsgroups that
wo
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:33:15PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >The .deb is proprietary to Debian. =3Dp The installation and removal scri=
>
> Any particular reason you have Quoted Printable on?
Not really. Other than that it's the default and is more or less considered
standard so I left i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 23 May 1998 19:21:06 +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
>The .deb is proprietary to Debian. =3Dp The installation and removal scri=
Any particular reason you have Quoted Printable on?
>Do you rem
"Rev. Joseph Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --oC1+HKm2/end4ao3
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > >The "other data" in Debian's case is stuff like dependency informat
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >The "other data" in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information,
> >installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address.
>
> Proprietary to Debian...
The .deb is proprietary to Debian. =p The install
On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 09:52:51PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 1998 14:10:40 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> >(Oh, and the nice thing about having an ar of two tar's rather than a
> >tar with some extra stuff tacked on the end is that you can get to *all*
> >the information in the fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 23 May 1998 17:56:53 +0100, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
>non-Linux system (if the package is a binary-all one). How would I do
>that with SLP?
Hell if I know. I was just pointing out one of the good points of SLP.
It is based on tar. It is
On Sun, 24 May 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Here is why a lot of people are looking at SLP and liking it.
> > tar xzf blah.slp
>
> If this is a design feature, why not just run Slackware?
>
> I think that .deb packages are extr
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 03:40:37AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Dependancies aren't used outside Debian's packaging. That information is
> presented, also, in the README. Installation and removal scripts, ditto.
If I use a non-Debian system (slackware, for example), and I want to
install a prog
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 03:40:37AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> RPMs are nice, but outside Red Hat they're not fun. DEB, same thing.
> Unless you have the package manager that comes along with it, they never
> really get used. SLP, without the package manager, *CAN* be used by anyone
> who is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 24 May 1998 01:54:44 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>but not essential anyway. They exist solely for use on Debian
>and derived systems. I cannot imagine why we are even having this
>discussion.
Because someone wanted to know why SLP and th
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Here is why a lot of people are looking at SLP and liking it.
> tar xzf blah.slp
If this is a design feature, why not just run Slackware?
I think that .deb packages are extractable without dpkg is nice
but not essential anyway. The
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:25:46 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >The "other data" in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information,
> >installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address.
> Proprietary to Debian...
On Sat, 23 May 1998 06:31:32 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:25:46 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>>
>> >The "other data" in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information,
>> >installation and removal scripts
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:25:46 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> >The "other data" in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information,
> >installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address.
>
> Proprietary to
On 23 May 1998 05:55:40 -0400, Bonard B. Timmons III wrote:
>So how does their package management work then? I don't understand
>what the disadvantage to .deb is besides that it is a new file format,
>especially since there are such nice tools (dpkg) with which to
>manipulate it.
Like any oth
"Steve Lamb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is why a lot of people are looking at SLP and liking it.
>
> tar xzf blah.slp
>
> There ya go, that's it, end of story. No cpio, no ar, nothing but tar
> which has been the standard for years and years, esp. in the Linux community
> as a wh
On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:25:46 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>The "other data" in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information,
>installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address.
Proprietary to Debian...
>(That's more or less enough information to tell you what oth
On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 09:52:51PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 1998 14:10:40 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >(Oh, and the nice thing about having an ar of two tar's rather than a
> >tar with some extra stuff tacked on the end is that you can get to *all*
> >the information in the forme
On Sat, 23 May 1998 14:10:40 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>(Oh, and the nice thing about having an ar of two tar's rather than a
>tar with some extra stuff tacked on the end is that you can get to *all*
>the information in the former with standard tools, whereas the latter
>requires you to whip out
On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 06:11:35PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>(I didn't know
>until about a month ago that .deb files were just 'ar' archives -- where is
>this documented?)
> See deb(5).
Or, for that matter, try `file *.deb':
] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ file cruft_0.9.1_i386.deb
] cruft_0.9
(I didn't know
until about a month ago that .deb files were just 'ar' archives -- where is
this documented?)
See deb(5).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 06:08:09PM +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 1998 at 01:08:11PM -0700, G John Lapeyre wrote:
> > > Does the stampede format even SUPPORT dependancies?
> > >
> > This is readily available from their web site.
> >
> > SLP Version 2.1 int value of 4. (Pr
On Thu, May 21, 1998 at 01:08:11PM -0700, G John Lapeyre wrote:
> > Does the stampede format even SUPPORT dependancies?
> >
> This is readily available from their web site.
>
> SLP Version 2.1 int value of 4. (Production release)
[..]
That is gross and at best hard to use by the end users
On Thu, 21 May 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> Does the stampede format even SUPPORT dependancies?
>
This is readily available from their web site.
SLP Version 2.1 int value of 4. (Production release)
/*
* The structure of a .slp file:
*
* First, a .tar.bz2 file
On Thu, May 21, 1998 at 01:57:39AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 1998 08:45:42 +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> >Does the stampede format even SUPPORT dependancies?
>
> Yes it does, minimally. I'm not familiar with DEB but what I liked about
> SLP was that it was just a TGZ w
On Thu, 21 May 1998 08:45:42 +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
>Does the stampede format even SUPPORT dependancies?
Yes it does, minimally. I'm not familiar with DEB but what I liked about
SLP was that it was just a TGZ with the package information appended to the
end. So instead of being a
[This thread prolly belongs on -user more than -devel]
On Wed, May 20, 1998 at 02:54:38AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> This is what I got from the Stampede's FAQ:
>
> How is Stampede Linux better than Debian Linux?
>
> + glibc2 in the standard distribution
We're closer to standard
35 matches
Mail list logo
