On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 13:03, Max Horn wrote: > At 12:43 Uhr -0800 20.01.2002, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > >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.
Um.. yes. I misunderstood entirely. My apologies :) > > 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. I hadn't actually. I've had to really look around to find information in features of dpkg that Fink doesn't (yet) exploit, like the shlibs stuff. > > 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. That's fine. It's just that there's very little that Fink does that isn't done by dpkg and rpm, and a whole lot that they do which Fink does not. If you want to continue duplicating the work that's already gone in to dpkg in fink, it's your project. I figure it'd be easier to parse the files that dpkg uses to build deb files and build on top of that. Where's the value in maintaining your own file format that isn't (yet) as flexible as those already used by the tools you're building on top of?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
