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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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/
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
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:
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
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.
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]
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
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
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
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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
