Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
At 13:12 -0700 1998-05-23, Steve Lamb wrote: On Sat, 23 May 1998 20:01:53 +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: Not really. Other than that it's the default and is more or less considered standard so I left it that way. *chuckle* There are quite a few people in quite a few newsgroups that would love to hear you say that so they can educate you otherwise. usenet != mail A newsreader that doesn't grok MIME is a common thing. A MUA that doesn't is a sorry POS, IMNSHO. -- Joel Espy Klecker Debian GNU/Linux Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web.espy.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then why discredit the idea, then point out all the niceties in your current prefered system when they aren't comparable at all? For what it's worth, the debian control information has always been present in tgz format, never in binary format. The old .deb files required a shell script and dd to extract the .tgz files, but it wasn't a very complicated shell script. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, 23 May 1998, Steve Lamb wrote: the same thing (while internally it does use .tgz and ar etc... I never said it was. I was pointing out that SLP could be. i doubt it. tar doesn't need crap tacked onto the end of it. The fact is that .tgz is great for archives (and backups... I use tar with my tape drive) but I (and many debian users) feel that dpkg makes a good packaging systemn and makes system adminitration allot easier (rpm does too, even tho most people here don't like to admit it :) ) Never said it wasn't. But what people who look at SLP and the fact that it is just a TGZ with information at the end are looking at is not just this system or that system it is all systems as a whole. IMO people who look at SLP and see that, just don't get the big picture. there is a lot more to a distribution than just compiling some binaries. RPMs are nice, but outside Red Hat they're not fun. DEB, same thing. Unless you have the package manager that comes along with it, they never really get used. wrong. they can be used by anyone with a brain who is willing to learn a simple command or two. ar and tar are on every unix so deb packages are no problem. rpm2cpio is easily compiled on any unix, and cpio is standard so rpms aren't much trouble either. this still doesn't get you anything which is worthwhile - in most cases it is too dangerous to install a redhat package on a debian system or debian package on stamped or slackware or slackware onto debian. as i said, there's a lot more to a distribution than just compiling some binaries. SLP, without the package manager, *CAN* be used by anyone who is used to tar. so what? like, big deal. in other words, who cares? what use is that? debian users are going to use dpkg because they don't want cruft from a .tar.gz or .slp screwing up their package-managed system. redhat users are going to use rpm because they don't want cruft from a .tar.gz or .slp screwing up their package-managed system. ditto for caldera and suse users. slackware users don't matter. in my experience, slackware users are either clueless newbies who will have trouble even with tar, or they are rabid do-it-yourselfers who wouldn't install someone else's pre-compiled binary even if they were paid to do it. stampede users matter even less - slp is their native package format, so the issue of foreign packages doesn't even arise. so, given all that, what *use* is this much touted ability to easily install on another system? what good does it actually do? btw, it is trivial to install a deb package on a non-debian systemit is a stupid thing to want to do (because .deb packages are designed for debian systems and may conflict with or overwrite curcial parts of your non-debian system...same as .rpm and .tar.gz and .slp packages are designed for their respective distributions). anyway, it's a stupid thing to want to do but it is easyas simple as: cd / ar x PACKAGE.deb data.tar.gz tar xfz data.tar.gz note the similarity in the command line arguments for ar and tar. from your other messages it seems as if you believe that 'ar' is some sort of weird, non-standard archiving format. it's not. it's been around for years. in fact, it was around long before tar. tar was based on ar, as a tape backup utility. ar == archive. tar == tape archive. in other words, any unix system will have ar on it. Even if we all just used .tgz archives and SLP, this makes the question of it moot because yes, you don't need the extra stuff you can just unpack it, but if you don't use SLP, then unpack it with .tar.gz...it is still possible that what you unpack will not intergrate well with your system Correct. But, again, my scope is beyond any one system. i think you haven't spent much (if any) time at all, thinking about the issues involved in managing multiple systems. It isn't the fact that they are available but the fact that most people are unaware of their use. You know, I've been using Linux for over two years and until this discussion I've never heard of ar? Until a discussion I had on the newsgroups about RPM a while back I was unaware of cpio. The while time I have used tgz. if you don't even know about these programs, then what makes you qualified to comment on then? having opinions is finebut please try to make them *INFORMED* opinions before spreading them around to others. Quite often, this is as simple as just reading and listening and learning something before opening your mouth - i.e. learn-by-lurking. craig -- craig sanders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rev. Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proprietary -- what in the heck could possibly be proprietary about Debian? We need to clear this confusing mess up NOW!!! As I meant it, is not really meant to be used outside of Debian or at least dpkg enabled dists.. Better? `Specific' would be a less loaded choice of word. -- Shields, CrossLink. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:25:46 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The other data in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information, installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address. Proprietary to Debian... ^ That's a pretty flamboyant choice of word around here. Maybe you ment spesific to Debian ? ;) --j -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:25:46 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The other data in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information, installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address. Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proprietary to Debian... Note to self: The debian administrator's guide needs an appendix on broken-system maneuvers. This would, after appropriate disclaimers, delve into the file formats of the current packaging system for cases where the files have been damaged, and/or where the dpkg suite isn't available. Make sure to discuss issues not handled by these techniques, and make sure to reference the chapter on how to write bug reports (since presumably something would be broken for these techniques to be needed). [As so many people have already pointed out that ar is not proprietary to Debian, I hope I don't have to delve further into this issue at this time.] -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 06:11:35PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote: (I didn't know until about a month ago that .deb files were just 'ar' archives -- where is this documented?) See deb(5). Or, for that matter, try `file *.deb': ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ file cruft_0.9.1_i386.deb ] cruft_0.9.1_i386.deb: current ar archive (Oh, and the nice thing about having an ar of two tar's rather than a tar with some extra stuff tacked on the end is that you can get to *all* the information in the former with standard tools, whereas the latter requires you to whip out the ol' C compiler if you don't have the appropriate packager handy) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``It's not a vision, or a fear. It's just a thought.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, 23 May 1998 14:10:40 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: (Oh, and the nice thing about having an ar of two tar's rather than a tar with some extra stuff tacked on the end is that you can get to *all* the information in the former with standard tools, whereas the latter requires you to whip out the ol' C compiler if you don't have the appropriate packager handy) If you don't have the packager, who cares about the other data? -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 09:52:51PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Sat, 23 May 1998 14:10:40 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: (Oh, and the nice thing about having an ar of two tar's rather than a tar with some extra stuff tacked on the end is that you can get to *all* the information in the former with standard tools, whereas the latter requires you to whip out the ol' C compiler if you don't have the appropriate packager handy) If you don't have the packager, who cares about the other data? The other data in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information, installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address. (That's more or less enough information to tell you what other programs you need to already have installed, anything special that you might have to take care of beyond just untar'ing it, and someone to email if you run into problems) (for actual debian systems, using dpkg --print-avail [pkg] and looking at /var/lib/dpkg/info/pkg.* will get you at the same info for installed packages, btw) Most of that's usually duplicated in /usr/doc/ directories, but since it's there and it can be useful, I think it's a good thing to let it be got at. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``It's not a vision, or a fear. It's just a thought.'' pgpbJIbipq9Jo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:25:46 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The other data in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information, installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address. Proprietary to Debian... (That's more or less enough information to tell you what other programs you need to already have installed, anything special that you might have to take care of beyond just untar'ing it, and someone to email if you run into problems) Which is generally in the README. Most of that's usually duplicated in /usr/doc/ directories, but since it's there and it can be useful, I think it's a good thing to let it be got at. To the point of requiring another program to get at the archive that the people want? I don't think so. Here is why a lot of people are looking at SLP and liking it. tar xzf blah.slp There ya go, that's it, end of story. No cpio, no ar, nothing but tar which has been the standard for years and years, esp. in the Linux community as a whole. SLP is an extention of that standard. Since it is compatible with it one can, theoretically, replace TGZ with SLP. The same cannot be said about deb and rpm. -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is why a lot of people are looking at SLP and liking it. tar xzf blah.slp There ya go, that's it, end of story. No cpio, no ar, nothing but tar which has been the standard for years and years, esp. in the Linux community as a whole. SLP is an extention of that standard. Since it is compatible with it one can, theoretically, replace TGZ with SLP. The same cannot be said about deb and rpm. So how does their package management work then? I don't understand what the disadvantage to .deb is besides that it is a new file format, especially since there are such nice tools (dpkg) with which to manipulate it. Bake -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On 23 May 1998 05:55:40 -0400, Bonard B. Timmons III wrote: So how does their package management work then? I don't understand what the disadvantage to .deb is besides that it is a new file format, especially since there are such nice tools (dpkg) with which to manipulate it. Like any other command line package manager. That isn't the point though. The point is that with SLP one could, theoretically, get rid of TGZ archives for those (Slackware) people who don't want or need a package manager. It isn't what SLP does inside its distribution, it is what it does outside of it. -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:25:46 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The other data in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information, installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address. Proprietary to Debian... I am not sure what you mean proprietary to debian The maintainers contact adress is the adress of the person who put the package together..so if it is a debian package...then yea that only makes sense to use their adress in the context of debian. The same goes for depandancy information... Most of that's usually duplicated in /usr/doc/ directories, but since it's there and it can be useful, I think it's a good thing to let it be got at. To the point of requiring another program to get at the archive that the people want? I don't think so. Well yes... debian has chosen to operate around dpkg, a packagig system. the point is to make it easy for a system administrator (even the smallest user setting up their own box can be considered the System Administrator of that box). The idea is that dpkg is a program which is capable of taking the package and checking to make sure that it meets dependancies (i.e. if the program is actually a perl script, then it wont install if perl doesn't exist) Here is why a lot of people are looking at SLP and liking it. tar xzf blah.slp There ya go, that's it, end of story. No cpio, no ar, nothing but tar which has been the standard for years and years, esp. in the Linux community as a whole. SLP is an extention of that standard. Since it is compatible with it one can, theoretically, replace TGZ with SLP. The same cannot be said about deb and rpm. .deb format is NOT out to replace .tar.gz ...but they really are not the same thing (while internally it does use .tgz and ar etc... a .deb is really more than the sum of its parts) In fact that is exactly how we distribute source code! there is the orrig.tar.gz a diff.gz and a text .dsc file The fact is that .tgz is great for archives (and backups... I use tar with my tape drive) but I (and many debian users) feel that dpkg makes a good packaging systemn and makes system adminitration allot easier (rpm does too, even tho most people here don't like to admit it :) ) The main problem is...as has been seen trying to convert a RPM to a .deb that certain decisions have to be made when putting a linux system together, decisions about how things work and intergrate. Even if we all just used .tgz archives and SLP, this makes the question of it moot because yes, you don't need the extra stuff you can just unpack it, but if you don't use SLP, then unpack it with .tar.gz...it is still possible that what you unpack will not intergrate well with your system In the end it is all a matter of what you want to do. Personally I like dpkg and deb files (One should hope I would, I just uploaded a new version of a package to master not even an hour ago). I like the system debian has developed. I don't really think either system is intrinsically superior to any other system, whatever works for you is what is superior to what doesnt. There really truely is no acounting for taste. I will even admit that when I heard of slackware, and everything comming as a simple tar.gz and the whole roll your own attitude, I liked it allot (though I never actually did try slackware) but I turned to debian and found I liked this better. For some things, yes I do want to roll my own and ocasionally do but, for most things, I just want to grab a package and install and have it work. (sort of Microsoft User mentality but...with the added bonus of it actually working) in any case, the comparison between SLP and deb files is unimportant it sounds to me like just 2 different ways to solve the same problem most systems have ar and tar and gz so really the idea of you don't need ar and cpio really is unimportant I don't see the huge advantage... There are a million ways to make a packaging system...is one way truely better than another? -Steve -- ** Stephen Carpenter ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** We do everything by custom, even belive by it; our very axioms, let us boast of free-thinking as we may, are oftenest simply such beliefs as we have never questioned --Thomas Carlyle pgpFVDeUC4bE3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, 23 May 1998 06:31:32 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:25:46 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The other data in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information, installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address. Proprietary to Debian... I am not sure what you mean proprietary to debian Dependancies aren't used outside Debian's packaging. That information is presented, also, in the README. Installation and removal scripts, ditto. Well yes... debian has chosen to operate around dpkg, a packagig system. Correct. the point is to make it easy for a system administrator (even the smallest user setting up their own box can be considered the System Administrator of that box). Even better. The idea is that dpkg is a program which is capable of taking the package and checking to make sure that it meets dependancies (i.e. if the program is actually a perl script, then it wont install if perl doesn't exist) And this is fine, for Debian. Here is why a lot of people are looking at SLP and liking it. tar xzf blah.slp There ya go, that's it, end of story. No cpio, no ar, nothing but .deb format is NOT out to replace .tar.gz ...but they really are not the same thing (while internally it does use .tgz and ar etc... I never said it was. I was pointing out that SLP could be. a .deb is really more than the sum of its parts) In fact that is exactly how we distribute source code! there is the orrig.tar.gz a diff.gz and a text .dsc file But this isn't about deb, this is about SLP. The fact is that .tgz is great for archives (and backups... I use tar with my tape drive) but I (and many debian users) feel that dpkg makes a good packaging systemn and makes system adminitration allot easier (rpm does too, even tho most people here don't like to admit it :) ) Never said it wasn't. But what people who look at SLP and the fact that it is just a TGZ with information at the end are looking at is not just this system or that system it is all systems as a whole. RPMs are nice, but outside Red Hat they're not fun. DEB, same thing. Unless you have the package manager that comes along with it, they never really get used. SLP, without the package manager, *CAN* be used by anyone who is used to tar. Even if we all just used .tgz archives and SLP, this makes the question of it moot because yes, you don't need the extra stuff you can just unpack it, but if you don't use SLP, then unpack it with .tar.gz...it is still possible that what you unpack will not intergrate well with your system Correct. But, again, my scope is beyond any one system. In the end it is all a matter of what you want to do. Personally I like dpkg and deb files (One should hope I would, I just uploaded a new version of a package to master not even an hour ago). I like the system debian has developed. So do I. I came to Debian because of dselect and aside from small problems I personally have with it that have been discussed to death on the user list I like it all around. in any case, the comparison between SLP and deb files is unimportant it sounds to me like just 2 different ways to solve the same problem most systems have ar and tar and gz so really the idea of you don't need ar and cpio really is unimportant It isn't the fact that they are available but the fact that most people are unaware of their use. You know, I've been using Linux for over two years and until this discussion I've never heard of ar? Until a discussion I had on the newsgroups about RPM a while back I was unaware of cpio. The while time I have used tgz. -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:25:46 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The other data in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information, installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address. Proprietary to Debian... That's a very loaded word. In this context it comes close to offensive. [0] (That's more or less enough information to tell you what other programs you need to already have installed, anything special that you might have to take care of beyond just untar'ing it, and someone to email if you run into problems) Which is generally in the README. Which I said. However that information *isn't* always included with prepackaged binaries, for the simple reason that such instructions are redundant: they've already been followed by the packager. To take the tar program as a simple example. /usr/doc/tar on my system contains three files: README.Debian which is basically a pointer to the upstream source, changelog.Debian.gz, and a copyright file. No INSTALL, no README, no nothing. Of course, tar doesn't require anything very special -- just libc6. util-linux could be more problematic, in that it requires ncurses3.4 and slang0.99.38 to be installed. It does include some READMEs, and even some installation instructions, at least for the login, init and getty programs. None of those mention ncurses or slang. Most of that's usually duplicated in /usr/doc/ directories, but since it's there and it can be useful, I think it's a good thing to let it be got at. To the point of requiring another program to get at the archive that the people want? I don't think so. Some tar's don't support the z option. Wouldn't it be better, therefore, not to gzip them, because that means they need another program to get at the archive they want? I don't think so. And, yes, I can see how this would be a problem if ar were an unusual sort of program to have on your system. And I don't doubt that there are systems out there that have tar but not ar or dpkg. I suspect, however, that most of those systems are either I'm going to use this system for email, the GIMP and web browsing RedHat installs, or This system is my firewall. ls is a hacking tool paranoia things. Both of which should, IMO, be being very careful about what they're doing, not finding precompiled binary packages *for other systems* and expecting them to work. Perhaps when there is a Linux distribution standard of some sort this might work, but... Well, colour me doubtful at the moment. Here is why a lot of people are looking at SLP and liking it. tar xzf blah.slp I thought I might try this myself. So I downloaded the smallest .slp I happened to stumble across from ftp.stampede.org, ummm, xslpc-0.75.slp. So I typed: ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ tar tzf xslpc-0.75.slp And I got told: ] gzip: stdin: not in gzip format ] tar: Child returned status 1 ] tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors Now, as it turns out, xslpc.slp *is* actually a compressed-tar with some extra stuff on the end, it's just not gzip compressed: it's bzip2 compressed. So forgive me if I don't immediately concur with your analysis that the slp format is based on things which have been the standard for years and years, while the deb format isn't. (This also gives me some concerns, ``So to extrace an .slp you just run tar xzvf *.slp, but if that doesn't work, you can use tar xIvf *.slp, and if *that* doesn't work, you might try tar xZvf *.slp, or...'') But to address your point rather than your rhetoric, what you seem to be saying is that slp would make a good standard distribution mechanism, as tarballs currently are, and as Bruce's effort hopes rpm will be, with the added bonus that slackware users don't need to install any extra programs. And perhaps, in fact, it would. Perhaps Stampede should approach Bruce and co. [1] about seeing if this is possible. I don't know. Personally, though, I *really* *don't* *like* having packaging information hidden away so that only the packaging system can get to it. I *like* having everything stored in simple text based files, archived with standard archivers. That's the main reason why I prefer things like LaTeX and HTML to Word, RTF and Windows help. And yes, AFAIK, this applies to RedHat as much as Stampede. There's no way cruft(8), for example, would've gotten written if I hadn't been able to use things like sed and diff initially, and if dpkg hadn't left its various databases as plain text I'd never have been able to do that. Now, I haven't personally done any scripting that involved .deb's directly but I suspect being able to use things other than dpkg itself to get at the information therein is equally beneficial. So in short, yeah, being able to run tar over your packages and have it work just like in the good ol' days with Slackware is cool. It's not quite cool enough to overcome the crockishness of having to tack some funky
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: Here is why a lot of people are looking at SLP and liking it. tar xzf blah.slp If this is a design feature, why not just run Slackware? I think that .deb packages are extractable without dpkg is nice but not essential anyway. They exist solely for use on Debian and derived systems. I cannot imagine why we are even having this discussion. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 24 May 1998 01:54:44 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: but not essential anyway. They exist solely for use on Debian and derived systems. I cannot imagine why we are even having this discussion. Because someone wanted to know why SLP and the percieved advantages. - -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNWbydHpf7K2LbpnFEQK3oQCg3NLsdVamUshSnDUdjH9PYzXvfgYAoKz5 ll6m8LyiOHlddiflJOYEeSJj =gMfJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 03:40:37AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: RPMs are nice, but outside Red Hat they're not fun. DEB, same thing. Unless you have the package manager that comes along with it, they never really get used. SLP, without the package manager, *CAN* be used by anyone who is used to tar. Can you explain to me, in words of one syllable or less (since I am obviously dumb), why this should be a goal? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 03:40:37AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: Dependancies aren't used outside Debian's packaging. That information is presented, also, in the README. Installation and removal scripts, ditto. If I use a non-Debian system (slackware, for example), and I want to install a program that comes in a Debian package, I can do the following: # ar -x program.deb # tar -xvzf control.tar.gz # ./preinst # tar -C / -xvzf data.tar.gz # ./postinst And I have the program installed and ready to run. No obscure tool needed, just plain old ar, tar and gzip. That may work even on a non-Linux system (if the package is a binary-all one). How would I do that with SLP? Thanks, -- Enrique Zanardi[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sun, 24 May 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: Here is why a lot of people are looking at SLP and liking it. tar xzf blah.slp If this is a design feature, why not just run Slackware? I think that .deb packages are extractable without dpkg is nice but not essential anyway. They exist solely for use on Debian and derived systems. I cannot imagine why we are even having this discussion. THANK you! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 23 May 1998 17:56:53 +0100, Enrique Zanardi wrote: non-Linux system (if the package is a binary-all one). How would I do that with SLP? Hell if I know. I was just pointing out one of the good points of SLP. It is based on tar. It is also a *BETA* product and one I don't use. If I did use Stampede and SLP, do you ing think I'd be in a Debian list? Geez. - -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNWcOOHpf7K2LbpnFEQIJ9ACfbuT8oUc0errBrnVEeD+DqMTuMYcAmgNa cOnyd2fHSk1VWA5c1q7UW8EU =lu6u -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 09:52:51PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Sat, 23 May 1998 14:10:40 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: (Oh, and the nice thing about having an ar of two tar's rather than a tar with some extra stuff tacked on the end is that you can get to *all* the information in the former with standard tools, whereas the latter requires you to whip out the ol' C compiler if you don't have the appropriate packager handy) If you don't have the packager, who cares about the other data? You can still read the depends/conflicts stuff. This is handy when packages are named what they are, which doesn't always happen.. pgpZ5cYFNt5dM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: The other data in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information, installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address. Proprietary to Debian... The .deb is proprietary to Debian. =p The installation and removal scripts are important even if you can't use them as-is, see below. (That's more or less enough information to tell you what other programs you need to already have installed, anything special that you might have to take care of beyond just untar'ing it, and someone to email if you run into problems) Which is generally in the README. The README file covers tarball installation. Unlike srpms, Debian's source packages are the tarball, a debianizing .diff, and a .dsc file to help dpkg-source use the above two files. The contents of the .deb file are debianized and should be instaled pretty much according to the preinst/postinst.. The prerm/postrm is just a handy thing if you ever wanna get rid of the program. Debian pre/postwhatever files do assume that they can use anything in base, which includes dpkg. They can and will try to update-alternatives, menus, what have you, and that will need to be changed. That stuff is usually non-essential and can be edited out of the install scripts quickly. If you have any questions as to how to remove the debianisms from the script, that maintainer email is suddenly very handy, if still proprietary to Debian. Most of that's usually duplicated in /usr/doc/ directories, but since it's there and it can be useful, I think it's a good thing to let it be got at. To the point of requiring another program to get at the archive that the people want? I don't think so. Here is why a lot of people are looking at SLP and liking it. tar xzf blah.slp There ya go, that's it, end of story. No cpio, no ar, nothing but tar which has been the standard for years and years, esp. in the Linux community as a whole. SLP is an extention of that standard. Since it is compatible with it one can, theoretically, replace TGZ with SLP. The same cannot be said about deb and rpm. Do you remember a release of bash that made it in to unstable not long ago? It had a predepends on libreadline---but the wrong version. Oops. Those of us who had another working sh-type shell had no problems fixing it, but what's the first thing more than a few of us did with it? We made quick non-maintainer patches to the .deb so it would install properly. I don't know about others, but I didn't pull out dpkg-dev stuff. I just un-ar'd it, un-tar'd control.tar.gz, and I fixed the dependancy info. Put it back together and it installs right. In the same circumstances, would I have been able to do that with a slp file? Likely not. Probably not. pgpkIWb85BJ5Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
Rev. Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --oC1+HKm2/end4ao3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:14:34AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: The other data in Debian's case is stuff like dependency information, installation and removal scripts, and the maintainer's contact address. =20 Proprietary to Debian... The .deb is proprietary to Debian. =3Dp The installation and removal scri= pts Proprietary -- what in the heck could possibly be proprietary about Debian? We need to clear this confusing mess up NOW!!! Please, people, please explain what in the world you are talking about. Please explain why you say proprietary to Debian. As far as I can tell, YOU ARE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER!! (Sorry for the yelling, but this is a seriously confusing thing here!!) I have a feeling that that we had better pick different terminology here. Thank you, Bake -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 23 May 1998 19:21:06 +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: The .deb is proprietary to Debian. =3Dp The installation and removal scri= Any particular reason you have Quoted Printable on? Do you remember a release of bash that made it in to unstable not long ago?= No. I dislike bash and don't use it. In the same circumstances, would I have been able to do that with a slp file? Likely not. Probably not. And neither you or I can answer that question. I have found out what the problem with this thread is. Most people are taking it as a religious affront. Look, use whatever slings your dingy, alright? But let's keep a few things grounded in fact. 1: SLP is beta, as is the rest of Stampede. How fun was DEB in its infancy. IIRC DEB was not always an ar archive of tars. 2: What I am talking about is the ideal that SLP presents, not the technical nitty gritty. Take that elsewhere. If you want to argue technical nitty gritty let's remember that I am on the Debian mailing list because, guess what, I *RUN* Debian. I guess that means, at the core of it, on the day to day operations, I must agree with the format, huh? 3: No one should ever get so religious about any topic that they are automatically closed to new ideas and ideals. No one. - -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNWcke3pf7K2LbpnFEQJHpwCbBxO+WFPZPPIRlTcG9Xk+NP8ffqIAn1S6 uymODERRyjbLdD9+st2GEIIo =hPvy -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 12:33:15PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: The .deb is proprietary to Debian. =3Dp The installation and removal scri= Any particular reason you have Quoted Printable on? Not really. Other than that it's the default and is more or less considered standard so I left it that way. Do you remember a release of bash that made it in to unstable not long ago?= No. I dislike bash and don't use it. Whelp, it kinda broke all of Debian because while YOU don't use it, the system doesn't work without it and a working copy must be present. In the same circumstances, would I have been able to do that with a slp file? Likely not. Probably not. And neither you or I can answer that question. I have found out what the problem with this thread is. Most people are taking it as a religious affront. Look, use whatever slings your dingy, alright? But let's keep a few things grounded in fact. I did look at the package format. I did see how the info was handled. I did see that what I have come to take for granted when working with normal tarballs and with .deb files didn't work. However, I can't see how someone who prefers a tar-based system would want to give up that ability to patch the info the package manager uses either. 1: SLP is beta, as is the rest of Stampede. How fun was DEB in its infancy. IIRC DEB was not always an ar archive of tars. I've not been around all that long. 2: What I am talking about is the ideal that SLP presents, not the technical nitty gritty. Take that elsewhere. If you want to argue technical nitty gritty let's remember that I am on the Debian mailing list because, guess what, I *RUN* Debian. I guess that means, at the core of it, on the day to day operations, I must agree with the format, huh? This thread is on debian-devel so the technical nitty-gritty seems kinda relevant here. This is my fault and I am sorry everyone. I originally posted a reply early on in this thread also to debian-user because at the time the thread seemed more appropriate. It's ended up crossposted since and has gotten AFAIC more technical. 3: No one should ever get so religious about any topic that they are automatically closed to new ideas and ideals. No one. I like the idea of tar vs. ar. I just don't like binary appended data to the tar file because I can't make use of it there without special tools. That's what turned me from rpm. pgpn9UTAJiVA2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 23 May 1998 20:01:53 +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: Not really. Other than that it's the default and is more or less considered standard so I left it that way. *chuckle* There are quite a few people in quite a few newsgroups that would love to hear you say that so they can educate you otherwise. 1: SLP is beta, as is the rest of Stampede. How fun was DEB in its infancy. IIRC DEB was not always an ar archive of tars. I've not been around all that long. Then why discredit the idea, then point out all the niceties in your current prefered system when they aren't comparable at all? This thread is on debian-devel so the technical nitty-gritty seems kinda relevant here. And is on -user as well. - -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNWctunpf7K2LbpnFEQJE7gCaAtum+ygJv2w7gCLi48tmkDxc4R4AmQEX VynMEfhzkuvuC7ok2YnhlmIi =i8qP -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Sat, May 23, 1998 at 03:28:43PM -0400, Bonard B. Timmons III wrote: The .deb is proprietary to Debian. =3Dp The installation and removal scri= pts Proprietary -- what in the heck could possibly be proprietary about Debian? We need to clear this confusing mess up NOW!!! As I meant it, is not really meant to be used outside of Debian or at least dpkg enabled dists.. Better? pgpvifoMyuxc5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Thu, May 21, 1998 at 01:08:11PM -0700, G John Lapeyre wrote: Does the stampede format even SUPPORT dependancies? This is readily available from their web site. SLP Version 2.1 int value of 4. (Production release) [..] That is gross and at best hard to use by the end users without special tools. This is the SAME problem rpm has. pgpJ1vDXd5qZO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 06:08:09PM +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: On Thu, May 21, 1998 at 01:08:11PM -0700, G John Lapeyre wrote: Does the stampede format even SUPPORT dependancies? This is readily available from their web site. SLP Version 2.1 int value of 4. (Production release) [..] That is gross and at best hard to use by the end users without special tools. This is the SAME problem rpm has. In fairness, it looks like just a .tar.gz archive followed by some additional information. So end users can just tar -xzvf the package, which is much cooler than using rpm2cpio _or_ the deb format. (I didn't know until about a month ago that .deb files were just 'ar' archives -- where is this documented?) Mind you, the clever Debian conffile features aren't going to work if you don't have a package manager do the installation. But if you're using a package manager, you don't need rpm2cpio or 'ar' anyway. Have fun, Avery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
(I didn't know until about a month ago that .deb files were just 'ar' archives -- where is this documented?) See deb(5). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
[This thread prolly belongs on -user more than -devel] On Wed, May 20, 1998 at 02:54:38AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: This is what I got from the Stampede's FAQ: How is Stampede Linux better than Debian Linux? + glibc2 in the standard distribution We're closer to standard release of hamm than they are of stampede. + Up to date programs hello? what do they think dists/frozen and dists/unstable are? Up to date software that has not undergone the same exhaustive testing as the older stuff in dists/stable. =p + PGCC for that added performance kick afaik, most packages do not NEED the optimization and there will be no noticable difference. Some things like perhaps high-bandwidth servers and the like would benefit, so why not use diversions and package optimized binaries? Debian might consider packaging pgcc, but I think if they did I would stick with egcs anyway. + Package format that is very usable across other distrobutions I've yet to see any but the most minimal (ie 1-2 floppy) dists that couldn't handle an ar archive. However, I think it might be nice if a few things were handled in a more generic manner. Most paths could/should be relative to wherever the dist puts these kinds of files. That's half the battle to making dpkg more flexable to be compatible with other package formats right there. The other half I think would be for Debian and Redhat people to agree on what to call things like glibc so dependancies would be taken care of. = As much as I personally dislike the rpm format and program, it's really the standard method for finding packages (as opposed to plain slackware type tarballs w/o dependancy checking) in Linux. Does the stampede format even SUPPORT dependancies? pgpVkWHQzjlRM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Thu, 21 May 1998 08:45:42 +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: Does the stampede format even SUPPORT dependancies? Yes it does, minimally. I'm not familiar with DEB but what I liked about SLP was that it was just a TGZ with the package information appended to the end. So instead of being a supplimant to TGZ it could flat out replace it since those who want the tarballs can have them in the SLP. -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Thu, May 21, 1998 at 01:57:39AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Thu, 21 May 1998 08:45:42 +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: Does the stampede format even SUPPORT dependancies? Yes it does, minimally. I'm not familiar with DEB but what I liked about SLP was that it was just a TGZ with the package information appended to the end. So instead of being a supplimant to TGZ it could flat out replace it since those who want the tarballs can have them in the SLP. .deb files contain .tar.gz files, of course; use 'ar x filename.deb' to extract into control.tar.gz, data.tar.gz and one other; data.tar.gz contains the files. hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian from the Stampede's POV
On Thu, 21 May 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
Does the stampede format even SUPPORT dependancies?
This is readily available from their web site.
SLP Version 2.1 int value of 4. (Production release)
/*
* The structure of a .slp file:
*
* First, a .tar.bz2 file
* immediatly following:
struct slpformat_v5 {
int FilesToKeep[FTKMAX];
int Priority;
int CompressionMechanism;
int Release;
int Copyright;
char ConflictsWith[CWMAX];
char SetupScript[SSMAX];
char ShortDescription[SDMAX];
char LongDescription[LDMAX];
char DependsRequirements[DRMAX];
char DependsSatisfy[DSMAX];
char Author[AMAX];
char Date[DMAX];
int CompilerVersion;
char SoftwareVersion[SVMAX];
char PackageName[PNMAX];
int BinaryFormat;
int PackageGrouping;
int SlPackageVersion = 5;
};
/* The above SlPackageVersion is 3.1, int value of 5
*/
John Lapeyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tucson,AZ http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
