At 12:43 Uhr -0800 20.01.2002, Gordon Messmer wrote: >On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 03:38, Max Horn wrote:
[...] > > * Move to a new package format - yes or no, and which. This has to be >> carefully designed, I think. > >If you're going to switch, I think that rpm is the clear choice. Err, I think you completly misunderstood me. I am not talking about going away from debian, I am talking from going from our own custom .info format to a different format. > It >provides shlib dependencies, pgp/gpg signatures, sub packages... All of which the .deb format can do, too. :) This is not the issue. It's not as easy as just saying "oh recompile dpkg/rpm on Mac OS X and we can use it and every featur it provides on Linux". Just in case you haven't noticed yet. > It >would probably be to Fink's benefit to replace .info files entirely with >native package descriptions (in the case of rpm, ".spec" files). I completly fully wholeheartedly disagree with everything in the above sentence. >And, since apt is available for rpm, you can still use that. Just in the hypothetical, never to happen case that we would move to RPM (which to repeat it, won't happen), why would we want to use apt then? No. I think nobody here is wanting to rewrite big parts of fink just to switch to RPM, esp. when i see no technical advantage in RPM. Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
