I knew this would be the response, which is why I haven't bothered to address it here for so long.
-Nick * Jeffrey Watts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [001023 15:59]: > On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Nicholas Petreley wrote: > > > As I'm sure you know already, I wrote about packaging in a recent > > column. But I wanted to address a different aspect of it here, in > > hopes that we'll throw out (IMO the incorrect) idea of declaring RPM > > as a standard format and instead adopt a more useful, flexible and > > constructive approach to the problem. > > Hasn't this been beaten to death by now? I think that most agree that > while using RPM may not be the best solution, it's definitely the most > practical solution for now. > > I would think that our time would be better spent on discussing things > that we don't have done yet. I'm not against discussing this, but most of > the time the only folks that participate in a discussion on RPM are those > that have some personal problem with RPM and/or Red Hat. > > My advice would be to stay the course and get this sucker done. :-) > > Jeffrey. > > o-----------------------------------o > | Jeffrey Watts | > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] o-----------------------------------------o > | Systems Programmer | "If Raymond is Pepsi, with fashionable | > | Network Systems Management | marketing, Stallman is the original | > | Sprint Communications | Coke, and the choice of a Gnu | > o----------------------------| generation..." | > | -- Lloyd Wood, on ESR and RMS | > o-----------------------------------------o > > -- ********************************************************** Nicholas Petreley Caldera Systems - LinuxWorld/InfoWorld [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.petreley.com - Eph 6:12 ********************************************************** .
