Regarding my attempt to rekindle discussion and explain why I do not believe we should standardize on any package manager -- I think I can distill the responses into three categories.
(1) We already decided on RPM, get over it. (2) What you're suggesting is too hard. (3) We need to move forward and it will take too long to start this discussion over again. (4) I had the same idea but couldn't get any buy-in on it. My responses: (1) Stupid answer. If RPM is an inadequate answer, and I believe it is, then let's revisit the topic. If we can't ever get to the point where we can admit to making any mistakes, then we're not good for anything and might as well close up shop. (2) Lazy answer. We have some of the most talented people on the planet at our disposal. Not only is it NOT too hard, it is actually easier than trying to address all of the problems with RPM. All we have to do is outline the proper procedure for ANY package installer. Please don't pick apart this example, because it's only meant to be a very oversimplified outline to illustrate the point, not as an official starting point for the new approach: Step 1: Run pre-installation script Step 2: Using FHS 2.1 and standard naming conventions, search directories for dependencies Step 3: Install files Step 4: Run post-installation script If the RPM maintainers want to add a step in there that searchs the RPM database, so be it. I'm not suggesting we ban RPM. I'm suggesting we define the rules necessary to make package installation reliable regardless of the package format, and regardless of whether or not anyone has installed anything using make. (3) Laughable answer. LSB is embarrassingly late already. If you really thing the above task is too difficult for LSB 1.0, then at the very least, publicize it as part of LSB 1.1 or 2.0. Give onlookers the confidence that we're not just cutting corners for convenince sake, that we're fully aware of the real installation problems and we intend to address them the RIGHT way. If you can't deliver it in 1.0, then lay out and publicize a credible roadmap for a useful spec in the near future. (4) I know how you feel. -Nick -- ********************************************************** Nicholas Petreley Caldera Systems - LinuxWorld/InfoWorld [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.petreley.com - Eph 6:12 ********************************************************** .
