On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 06:19:01PM -0500, David Douthitt scribbled:
> > Too many package formats use .tgz as their name.
>
> No, there is only one: a file that has been created by tar and
> compressed by gzip. Everything else is a file.
Slackware, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD all distribute their packages
with the name *.tgz. Yes, packages are files..and the contents
thereof, are also files.
> It is COMMON and well-understood and used by EVERYONE. Every serious
> unpacker for the Windows/DOS/BeOS/UNIX..... platform will understand a
> *.tgz file...
Agreed. That's the advantage of using the tar + gzip format for
the actual file. So far, I'm just talking about naming.
> If you make one up, then no one understands it - sort of like *.lrp
> right now.
I can open .lrp files just fine on any OS, using a 'serious
unpacker'. Sometimes, I have to rename it to .tar.gz or .tgz;
but that's easy and is rarely required.
> Also, any unpacker/archive tool needs to be able to handle problems
> and bombs - if the <pkg>.list file is missing, or the <pkg>.help file
> is missing, or in fact if *ANY* file is missing, it should be able to
> handle it. That's one of the big problems with lrpkg: a missing
> *.help file makes it crash; I think a missing *.version file does too.
lrpkg not being robust has nothing to do with .lrp package format.
> > them .tbz? Nobody uses .tbz for _anything_ not even bzip2'd
> > tar files.
>
> Right. And nobody will be able to decipher them on other platforms
> either.
Why? There's no bunzip2 for other systems?
> > I thought RPMs were tar.gz files with their own info in them,
> > like every other Linux and BSD package format in existance.
>
> They're not; I just checked. Usually, one uses rpm2cpio to create a
> "standard" format file.
Yet another reason for me to dislike RH and RH-like distributions.
> > I thought .deb was the same as my thought on RPM above...
> It may be somewhat; I think tar worked, I'm not sure.
Well I'll be...I just tried both rpm and deb files with gzip
and bzip and couldn't get anything out of either of them. What
kind of crack are they smoking?
> UNIX originally did EVERYTHING in files .... why not use [files] in
> our packaging?
Could fooled me...I thought we did. We have pacakges that
are .tar.gz files named *.lrp; we have files inside those
packages that specify what files should be found in the
packages [as well as other package-related info], and we
have files that are actually being distributed [the whole
purpose of the package].
> So... NO special format, NO special databases, NO special "support"
> files needed, NO anything - just tar, gzip, and files.
You don't think it's important for the package to carry some
identifying information with it?
At least, a version file, so it's easy for the user to figure
out which package he's using.
Don't forget that LRP has special packaging needs, unlike those
of rpm and deb and other formats -- specifically, LRP needs to
keep it's stuff in package format, rather than just installing
the package and forgetting about it. It has to re-write the
package often, and do so efficiently.
I really think LRP packages are quite optimum, although improvements
could come in the form of additional files in /var/lib/lrpkg that
contain more information, or elsewhere, or containing extra
functionality, such as pre/post install/remove scripts].
--
rick -- A mind is like a parachute... it only works when it's open.
ICQ# 1590117 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Help with LRP: http://lrp.c0wz.com Home page: http://www.c0wz.com
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
