Actually I like .lrp as well, though my complaint
with it is different. I find it difficult to extract files
from a .lrp without potentially overwriting important system
binaries on the development box.
What'd be *much* nicer is if package.lrp expanded
to /tmp/package, and then /tmp/package/package.list would be
queried to find out where to put everything.
-Scott
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> I seem to be somewhat alone in that I *LIKE* the *.lrp packaging;
> there is only one change I would make: rename the files from *.lrp to
> *.tgz. This adds the ability to know what the file format is, and
> allows Windows hosts to decipher the file automatically.
>
> However, there is support for unpacking RPM and DEB files within
> busybox; I haven't played with them yet, but perhaps a new
> distribution might find a need for them.
>
> I don't know about Debian packages, but RPMs are very nice for a full
> system, work fast, upgrade well, have dependency checking..... and
> also a huge database, lots of CPU overhead, and aren't usable with
> generic UNIX utilities like tar, gzip, and cpio...
>
> Debian probably has a similar problem, yet I don't like their dpkg
> hardly at all.
>
> I've also used Unixware packages and HP-UX depots; none of them share
> the fundamental simplicity that the *.tar.gz file for LRP supports.
> UNIX originally did EVERYTHING in files; I understand that Plan 9 (an
> AT&T post-UNIX OS development) goes even FARTHER with this idea. Why
> not use it in our packaging?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leaf-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
