Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 01:15:46PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote: The LSB doesn't need the full power of a complex packaging system, and it is unlikely they would get it right without really using it. I disagree with that. The people who are involved with that particular bit of LSB happen to be a dpkg maintainer, the apt author, rpm upstream, the author of dpkg-rpm and a few other capable people. If you don't trust that group you may as well give up and start your own packaging system. Trust has nothing to do with it. Frankly, I agree that the format of the package file being something that standard *NIX tools can manipulate. I agree that a packaging system should be unnecessary to install a binary package. Marcus is right on the money with his statement. However, I will articulate Wichert's implied statement: get involved with the LSB. Bickering about it on debian-devel isn't going to get people very far. A little research[1] turns up the following on how to get involved: Invitation To Participate Anyone wishing to participate in the LSB project either as an observer or as a contributor should join one of the mailing lists[2]. There are no fees for participation or membership. 1. http://www.linuxbase.org 2. http://www.linuxbase.org/lists.html Related threads: 3. http://lists.debian.org/lsb-discuss-0010/msg00012.html 4. http://lists.debian.org/lsb-discuss-0010/msg00036.html 5. http://lists.debian.org/lsb-discuss-0007/msg2.html 6. http://lists.debian.org/lsb-discuss-0105/msg00025.html Good Hunting! -- Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] | a.k.a. ^chewie http://www.wookimus.net/| s.k.a. gunnarr Key fingerprint = B4AB D627 9CBD 687E 7A31 1950 0CC7 0B18 206C 5AFD pgprN7UihBBmW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The last version of the LSB http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/swinstall. html says: Currently the LSB does not officially specify a package format; however, the recommended package format is RPM (Version 3) with some restrictions listed below. RPM is the defacto standard on Linux [sic] and supported either directly, or indirectly by the widest number of distributions. The intent is to in the future replace this format with a new format currently being developed. (End of quote) [snip] Hello! Just FYI, RedHat does not fullfill this suggestion, too. They use RPM Version 4 RH7.* comes with RPM4 and RHEA-2001:016-04 suggests to upgrade RH5.2 and RH6.*. cu andreas -- Uptime: 10 seconds load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 vim:ls=2:stl=***\ Sing\ a\ song.\ ***
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:07:57PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: I agree. The LSB should contrast/compare features of both and come up with a superset of both (possibly favoring ones implementation over the other). Most importantly, the metadata format needs to be standardized. That is the key component. If that is standard, then the binary format means very little (since a simple converter can be created just like alien). I think it makes more sense for the LSB to define an intersection of required features, and use only that for their stuff. Then other people can easily implement this minimal interface or convert to/from it. The LSB doesn't need the full power of a complex packaging system, and it is unlikely they would get it right without really using it. Marcus
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote: The LSB doesn't need the full power of a complex packaging system, and it is unlikely they would get it right without really using it. I disagree with that. The people who are involved with that particular bit of LSB happen to be a dpkg maintainer, the apt author, rpm upstream, the author of dpkg-rpm and a few other capable people. If you don't trust that group you may as well give up and start your own packaging system. Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 12:26:35PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: I think it makes more sense for the LSB to define an intersection of required features, and use only that for their stuff. Then other people can easily implement this minimal interface or convert to/from it. The LSB doesn't need the full power of a complex packaging system, and it is unlikely they would get it right without really using it. i don't think it doesn't really makes any sense for them to comment on packaging systems anyway. the only reason i can see (and has been mentioned) for it is proprietary developers. i personally think proprietary stuff should just go in /opt. proprietary devs almost invariably horribly ignore the FHS or anything resembling *nix filesystem standards anyway.. so i say hell with it tell them to put all thier junk in /opt/prog and perhaps require a wrapper script suitable for installation in /usr/local/bin that properly runs the software. if they did this packaging systems don't even enter into it, the developer just ships a tar.gz to be unpacked in /opt, simple. or better yet, don't use non-free software ;-) IMNSHO, it should be up to the distribution makers to do packaging, not upstream as its usually not thier specialty and thus they often end up making a crappy package. standard or not i think this will always be the case. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgpOxtWHvUj1l.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:07:57PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
I agree. The LSB should contrast/compare features of both and come up
with a superset of both (possibly favoring ones implementation over the
other). Most importantly, the metadata format needs to be standardized.
That is the key component. If that is standard, then the binary format
means very little (since a simple converter can be created just like
alien).
I think it makes more sense for the LSB to define an intersection of
required features, and use only that for their stuff. Then other people can
easily implement this minimal interface or convert to/from it.
In fact this is what was done. RPM supports an infinite number of
installation scripts. Some of these scripts are run from triggers. No
other Package Format does this. LSB will limit the number of scripts to
match the structure of .deb files, as I understand things.
The LSB doesn't need the full power of a complex packaging system, and it is
unlikely they would get it right without really using it.
The LSB will never specify a packaging system. I will restrict itself to
only the package format including a binary component format {sorry Ben ;-}
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_-
_-_-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
I can't speak for Debian on the LSB in general but I am the moderator of the taskforce working on the LSB's Lowest Common Denominator first try at a common packaging system. We do have a FAQ online in the archives of our mailing list http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/7337/0/ that will be on the Linux Standards Base homepage http://www.linuxbase.org/ RSN :). The brave can look at the raw SGML at http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/lsb/spec/packaging/lcd/lcd_faq.sgml?rev=1.4 To address some of the other points raised here and elsewhere in this thread. A packaging system does not make a distribution. The LSB does not mandate any particular packaging system to be the native one; however one that is commonly understood would be *very* useful for the distribution and software producers interested in the LSB standard. Otherwise we will hear the question O.K. I have this software that works on all these LSB conforming distributions without changes; but I have to make one package set for each one?!!! GAAAK! I went through that mess a year ago[0] and cheated horribly (.debs and .rpms via alien only, then test on everything). I don't want to ever do it again. BTW. For those who think the LSB is just for binary-only software. Imagine appache, KDE, Gnome or any other large free app packaged once for the LSB conforming systems by one group of people. Could this be a good thing too? Source RPMs do work. The LSB's LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) is working on a simple package system that is the *intersection* of capabilities the major ones in current use. Yes the RPM V3 [1] package archive file format is being used (as *.lsb files), but to handle data dpkg both requires and will not choke on. In spare moments I am working on a dpkg-lsb to be a peer to dpkg-deb so that dpkg can be used to install *.lsb archives directly. Alien is influencing me heavily. The LCD taskforce is compromising on quantity of features by design, but the quality of implementation should be comparable with any other peer-reviewed infrastructure project. More features can be added the next time round. The mailing list contains lots of requirements for that effort :). Albert. [0] WordPerfect 2000 for Linux for those who care. [1] Note that this archive file format is understood by both the rpm V3 and V4 programs. Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: The last version of the LSB http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/swinstall.html says: Currently the LSB does not officially specify a package format; however, the recommended package format is RPM (Version 3) with some restrictions listed below. RPM is the defacto standard on Linux [sic] and supported either directly, or indirectly by the widest number of distributions. The intent is to in the future replace this format with a new format currently being developed. (End of quote) So, LSB is not a specification for Linux-based operating systems but for the subset of them which uses the RPM format. Moreover, the FAQ http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/faq.htm#pckg2.1l says: This arrangement was agreed up on by the major distributions including deb based ones (eg Debian, Storm, Corel) as well as RPM based ones (Red Hat, SuSE, TurboLinux, Caldera, Mandrake). (End of quote) Is it true that Debian approved this standard? I have no idea if Debian has approved this standard and who would have done so. Albert. -- Albert den Haan, Lead Developer @ Linux Port Team . Corel Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] (613) 728-0826 x 5318
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote: There are two ways to handle those packages on Debian systems now: one is using alien, and the other is using Albert's dpkg-rpm patch which makes it possible for dpkg to use those packages directly. Um, where is this patch?
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 01:08:21PM -0400, Albert den Haan wrote: The LSB's LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) is working on a simple package system that is the *intersection* of capabilities the major ones in current use. Yes the RPM V3 [1] package archive file format is being used (as *.lsb files), but to handle data dpkg both requires and will not choke on. [snip] [1] Note that this archive file format is understood by both the rpm V3 and V4 programs. may i suggest you use a more generic format? .debs are nothing more then an ar archive containing a couple gzipped tarballs. they can extracted on virtually any system, regardless of OS even. this is a tremendous advantage IMO, both because for example slackware need not put rpm into thier distro, and more importantly for recovery purposes. it can be a life saver to be able to quickly extract a package on a badly hosed system. (lets say a bout of filesystem corruption wipes out /bin/rpm) and yes i have had this type of thing happen before. debian's human readable and editable package database, and open and standard ar+tar+gzip package format saved me from a reinstall. this choice of using the rpm binary format should be reconsidered IMNSHO. i don't really care whether you use the debian ar+tar+gzip, or just plain .tar.gz, just use something i can extract *anywhere* with the most basic and standard tools, without having to go and compile rpm or some rpm archive extracter. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgp2X5SmAI0vs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:14:20PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: this choice of using the rpm binary format should be reconsidered IMNSHO. i don't really care whether you use the debian ar+tar+gzip, or just plain .tar.gz, just use something i can extract *anywhere* with the most basic and standard tools, without having to go and compile rpm or some rpm archive extracter. RPM is just a cpio archive. Or at least that was my impression. So GNU cpio should work just fine. sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss pgpPj7KfJozyM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
Its been a while, but if I remember correctly, RPMs are in cpio format. Tim Ethan Benson wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 01:08:21PM -0400, Albert den Haan wrote: The LSB's LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) is working on a simple package system that is the *intersection* of capabilities the major ones in current use. Yes the RPM V3 [1] package archive file format is being used (as *.lsb files), but to handle data dpkg both requires and will not choke on. [snip] [1] Note that this archive file format is understood by both the rpm V3 and V4 programs. may i suggest you use a more generic format? .debs are nothing more then an ar archive containing a couple gzipped tarballs. they can extracted on virtually any system, regardless of OS even. this is a tremendous advantage IMO, both because for example slackware need not put rpm into thier distro, and more importantly for recovery purposes. it can be a life saver to be able to quickly extract a package on a badly hosed system. (lets say a bout of filesystem corruption wipes out /bin/rpm) and yes i have had this type of thing happen before. debian's human readable and editable package database, and open and standard ar+tar+gzip package format saved me from a reinstall. this choice of using the rpm binary format should be reconsidered IMNSHO. i don't really care whether you use the debian ar+tar+gzip, or just plain .tar.gz, just use something i can extract *anywhere* with the most basic and standard tools, without having to go and compile rpm or some rpm archive extracter. -- Timothy H. Keitt Department of Ecology and Evolution State University of New York at Stony Brook Phone: 631-632-1101, FAX: 631-632-7626 http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/keitt/
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 05:47:00PM -0500, Sam TH wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:14:20PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: this choice of using the rpm binary format should be reconsidered IMNSHO. i don't really care whether you use the debian ar+tar+gzip, or just plain .tar.gz, just use something i can extract *anywhere* with the most basic and standard tools, without having to go and compile rpm or some rpm archive extracter. RPM is just a cpio archive. Or at least that was my impression. So GNU cpio should work just fine. people love to say that, but it simply isn't true. i have never been able to use cpio to extract an rpm except by putting the rpm through rpm2cpio first. ar tar and gzip are extractable EVERYWHERE, even non-GNU systems. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgp6SFVJ3zkcS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 06:32:14PM -0400, Timothy H. Keitt wrote: Its been a while, but if I remember correctly, RPMs are in cpio format. no there not, they are in a goofed up customized cpio format that cpio no longer recognizes. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgpSK7KOzXcqF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Timothy H. Keitt wrote: Its been a while, but if I remember correctly, RPMs are in cpio format. $ cpio -idv -F gnocatan-client-0.6.1-2.alpha.rpm cpio: warning: skipped 61098 bytes of junk cpio: warning: archive header has reverse byte-order cpio: [binary garbage output snipped]: unknown file type cpio: premature end of file ... apparently not... RPMs are in fact based on the cpio format, but I think they stick their own header on the front of the file -- the only way I've ever seen cpio handle the contents of an RPM is after passing the RPM through the rpm2cpio utility. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 05:44:17PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, 9 May 2001, Timothy H. Keitt wrote: Its been a while, but if I remember correctly, RPMs are in cpio format. $ cpio -idv -F gnocatan-client-0.6.1-2.alpha.rpm cpio: warning: skipped 61098 bytes of junk cpio: warning: archive header has reverse byte-order cpio: [binary garbage output snipped]: unknown file type cpio: premature end of file ... apparently not... exactly RPMs are in fact based on the cpio format, but I think they stick their own header on the front of the file -- the only way I've ever seen cpio handle the contents of an RPM is after passing the RPM through the rpm2cpio utility. a few weeks ago i was chatting with a yellowdog employee who for some reason needed to extract a .rpm raw rather then via rpm. he could extract normal cpio files just fine, but no matter what could not get the rpm extracted. i kept telling him the `rpm is cpio' thing just isn't true but he still felt the need to fsck around with it and reread all the cpio docs for over an hour until he finally took my word for it and used rpm2cpio. based on cpio is a far cry from BEING a cpio archive. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgpKEg8ZiZOog.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:14:20PM -0800 wrote: this choice of using the rpm binary format should be reconsidered IMNSHO. i don't really care whether you use the debian ar+tar+gzip, or just plain .tar.gz, just use something i can extract *anywhere* with the most basic and standard tools, without having to go and compile rpm or some rpm archive extracter. This is a very important point. I hope those involved in the standardization effort will consider this point. Even in non emergency situations I have attempted to extract data from an rpm on a machine withouth rpm (documentation, for example) and have not been successful. David -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Ethan Benson wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 06:32:14PM -0400, Timothy H. Keitt wrote: Its been a while, but if I remember correctly, RPMs are in cpio format. no there not, they are in a goofed up customized cpio format that cpio no longer recognizes. http://www.rpmdp.org/rpmbook/node119.html says RPMs are some data + a gzipped cpio archive. There's a shell script at http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/utils/compress/disrpm which finds the start of the gzipped cpio archive and then extracts the contents. Juergen -- Juergen Kreileder, Blackdown Java-Linux Team http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux.html Visit the Java 2 Platform on Linux BOF at JavaOne: http://servlet.java.sun.com/javaone/conf/bofs/1745/0-sf2001.jsp
[FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
The last version of the LSB http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/swinstall. html says: Currently the LSB does not officially specify a package format; however, the recommended package format is RPM (Version 3) with some restrictions listed below. RPM is the defacto standard on Linux [sic] and supported either directly, or indirectly by the widest number of distributions. The intent is to in the future replace this format with a new format currently being developed. (End of quote) So, LSB is not a specification for Linux-based operating systems but for the subset of them which uses the RPM format. Moreover, the FAQ http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/faq.htm#pckg2.1l says: This arrangement was agreed up on by the major distributions including deb based ones (eg Debian, Storm, Corel) as well as RPM based ones (Red Hat, SuSE, TurboLinux, Caldera, Mandrake). (End of quote) Is it true that Debian approved this standard?
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
Stephane Bortzmeyer schrieb: below. RPM is the defacto standard on Linux [sic] and supported either directly, or indirectly by the widest number of distributions. The statement is perfectly true, Debian supports RPM with aliens help. The intent is to in the future replace this format with a new format currently being developed. I'd like it much more if there was a simple portable package format (like GNU .tar.gz (ie with autoconf or workalike);) and distributions can build on that if they feel they need to. In short: most is there. So, LSB is not a specification for Linux-based operating systems but for the subset of them which uses the RPM format. What part of the quote leads you to this conclusion? ciao, 2ri -- No, I'm not going to explain it. If you can't figure it out, you didn't want to know anyway... :-) -- Larry Wall in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Tue, 08 May 2001, Arthur Korn wrote: Stephane Bortzmeyer schrieb: below. RPM is the defacto standard on Linux [sic] and supported either directly, or indirectly by the widest number of distributions. The statement is perfectly true, Debian supports RPM with aliens help. I'd like to remind all of the fact that the LSB also specifies the entire set of libs one can use, so alien can (and I suppose, will) be taught how to correctly map the .lsb to .deb dependencies if given a proper LSB-compatible package as input, for example. Since the LSB is mainly useful for binary-only distributors, we need not get annoyed over their choice of rpm. After all, it makes more sense, since most distributors already have staff that knows how to build rpms anyway. So, LSB is not a specification for Linux-based operating systems but for the subset of them which uses the RPM format. Not true at all... there are lots of useful stuff (and lots of bad stuff, I suppose) in that standard. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh pgpAZAuIYABZt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
Previously Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: Is it true that Debian approved this standard? Yes. Basically we needed a standard that people could accept and that could be implemented quickly. Obviously rpm was the only solution, and a subset of rpm is used to make sure that that will work on non-rpm based systems as well. There are two ways to handle those packages on Debian systems now: one is using alien, and the other is using Albert's dpkg-rpm patch which makes it possible for dpkg to use those packages directly. On a longer timescale we'll likely move to a new packages format, but that's not for LSB 1. Wichert. -- / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Since the LSB is mainly useful for binary-only distributors, we need not get annoyed over their choice of rpm. After all, it makes more sense, since most distributors already have staff that knows how to build rpms anyway. So the LSB is just about convienience then is it (do whats easiest) ? If LSB compromise on quality then they will only ever get a subset of the community supporting it, why not try for something better than both RPM or DEB, its the only way people will willingly change. If nothing can be made that is better than both RPM and DEB then both package systems obviously have a purpose. Glenn
Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:26:58AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Since the LSB is mainly useful for binary-only distributors, we need not get annoyed over their choice of rpm. After all, it makes more sense, since most distributors already have staff that knows how to build rpms anyway. So the LSB is just about convienience then is it (do whats easiest) ? If LSB compromise on quality then they will only ever get a subset of the community supporting it, why not try for something better than both RPM or DEB, its the only way people will willingly change. If nothing can be made that is better than both RPM and DEB then both package systems obviously have a purpose. I agree. The LSB should contrast/compare features of both and come up with a superset of both (possibly favoring ones implementation over the other). Most importantly, the metadata format needs to be standardized. That is the key component. If that is standard, then the binary format means very little (since a simple converter can be created just like alien). After that, then all package managers atleast can aim for something, instead of shooting in the dark like we do now. The LSB needs to stay away from trying to standardize a binary format (who cares if it's tar.gz, ar or cpio). They will only piss people off. Ben -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
