On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 03:11:41PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Quite frankly, .tgz isn't good enough for just about anything.
Why? Because it provides no out-of-band data? > If the goal is to be binary compatibility, there needs to be a > standard package distribution format, and like it or not, RPM has > become the de facto standard, and I think it is best making it a de > jure standard with proper specification. Not really, as you touch on in the last part of your next paragraph: > Specifically, I think LSB should standardize the package format for > a *specific* version of RPM -- perhaps with extensions to make it > more multivendor friendly -- since RPM has had far too many forwards > compatibilty problems in the past. There are multiple, conflicting standards for RPM. These standards vary over time, and they vary from vendor to vendor. I'd classify RPM as a defacto standards conflict. > That doesn't mean that distributions need to use RPM, it just means > they should be able to handle third-party RPM/LSB packages. Of course, this would be true for any such recommendation. -- Raul
