On Wed, 16 May 2001, Doug Beattie wrote: >One paragraph says: >"The distribution itself may use a different packaging format for its >own packages, and of course it may use alien or other mechanisms for >installing the RPMv3 packages." > >It may be good to quote "alien" and give an example specifically for >deb.
I would take "alien" right out. ... "it may possibly use other software that can convert to RPM format". Hard coding an application name in a standard in this manner is not a good idea IMHO. >I know there are many feeling on this, and I don't want to stir things >up again as this was hashed out during the call on the 9th, but >allowing one such example here may tend to tone down negative feedback >from many in the community. Personally, I think that we're all better off with ONE single unified package format and package manager. RPM is the most widely used one, and so it makes the most sense IMHO. I don't think the standard even needs to reference conversion software, other than perhaps to mention it exists. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Signature poll: I'm planning on getting a 12 or 16 port autosensing 10/100 ethernet switch soon for home use, and am interested in hearing others recommendations on what to buy. Cost isn't as important as is functionality and quality. Any suggestions appreciated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
