In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wade Hampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> >> Is nobody else astonished that something so fundamental a standards issue >> as packaging formats, that was first debated the moment the LSB started >> more than two and a half years ago, is still being argued? This group has >> made so little progress in that area that a call to practically start from >> scratch is still taken seriously. >> >> The problem is not that the RPM approach doesn't (or, more correctly, >> can't be made to) work. It's that this group has never reached a formal >> consensus/vote/decree/whatever on a packaging architecture. Had it done so >> ages ago (as Bodo suggests), resources could have been allocated to first >> draw up an RPM spec that would have at least had all the RPM-using distros >> on the same page. Debian programmers would have had an unambiguous target >> to parse. Efforts such as LANANA could have been accepted as a formal part >> of the LSB; having done that, this group could then address RPM's >> deficiencies at a later date. >VERY GOOD! > >I suggest we take a vote. The options are RPM or DEB? >Once the vote is taken, the result would be the standard. All have >pro's and con's. Once an existing format is agreed upon (say in 1 >week -- put hard time limit on it!), then address the shortcomings. > No. The options are NOT rpm or deb. There is a third option - a mandatory API (which BY DEFINITION is compatible with both rpm AND deb).
My vote is for an API. -- Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports as Lies-to-People. The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999
