David Douthitt wrote:
> Andrew Hoying wrote:
> >
> > I guess by making these packages available for download, the LEAF
project's
> > various LRP variants are technically a distribution.
>
> LEAF, in my mind, consists of two distributions - or at least, sponsors
> them - Eigerstein and Oxygen.
I agree, but both have the same foundation, so I think of them more like sub
distributions, like how Mandrakesoft has the standard Mandrake, the Cooker
and the Mandrake-firewall (at least) different distributions.
>
> > However as more people begin using these various LRP
> > distributions, there are two primary concerns.
> >
> > First is package compatibility. Obviously I want a .lrp package to work
on
> > any lrp variant. I think that a new, more refined packaging scheme will
> > bring us even further in this direction, although it may break
compatibility
> > with older systems. If forced to break compatibility, we will obviously
want
> > to change the extension to something else at the same time.
>
> The biggest break will be compiling items for glibc 2.1 and glibc 2.2;
> there hasn't been a good choice proposed as how to deal with this. I've
> taken the position (weakly and reluctantly) of putting "(GLIBC2.1)"
> somewhere in the version.
This will certainly be a big break, I'm just hoping for a good versioning
and dependency system without the size and complexity of the RPM system.
> Using vfat instead of msdos is another possibility... for longer
> filenames.
I'm a big proponent of moving to VFat, we'll just have to find a new small
boot loader.
> Perhaps LEAF can adopt the Debian classification system (free and
> non-free, etc.) and classify packages that way?
That's not a bad idea at all.
--
Andrew Hoying
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
