> Alan Horkan wrote: > > >Supporting Autopackage wouldn't adversely affect or favour any > >particularly distribution and it would in fact produce packages widely > >usable by a whole variety of distributions. There is no Autopackage based > >distribution yet (nor is there likely to be). > > > > > Note that autopackage is just another package management system.
Yup > The only reason that it doesn't favour any particular distro is that no > one uses it, as opposed to other package management systems. Yeah, I suppose I should have added a smiley face to that :) > >I think there is some benefit to having developers in control of their > >packages because they sure aren't going to want to have to maintain > >mulitple different RPMs and they would insist on a greater level of > >compatibility from RPM bases distributions. > The issue of distribution differences is not related to use of RPM. If > you want to integrate well with the underlying OS, you'll probably need > some distro specific changes. True but I think developers would be a lot more reticent in making any changes they could possibly avoid. > There are issues where distros have used different package naming, which > would've been nice to avoid, but that is certainly not the only issue. These things are always more complicated than they look. > >A Gnome LiveCD full of Autopackages could be very interesting. > > > > > For a live CD, the package management system is not really that > interesting. The software is all installed on the system image you boot > into. I was thinking you'd try Gnome and then upgrade your computer from the same LiveCD but I suppose now that i think about it further you would have to include everthing twice to allow for that. - Alan H. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
