Eugene Gorodinsky writes:
> No, on the contrary, I'm suggesting to have an additional format for
> software that is not system-specific and leaving the system-specific
> formats to do what they were designed for (i.e. manage system packages)
> rather than reducing the number of formats.
I don't
Sorry for the delay, I've been very busy last week.
>> A while ago I participated in a discussion here about the debian
>> package format. Quite recently I tried to spark up a discussion about
>> package formats on the LSB list but did not get any replies
>
>Can you point to the message (preferabl
> I've read that several times, but I still must be missing something.
>My impression is that your poins is essentially the following: 1. it's
>too much work for "small distros" to use any new format instead of one
>of the big established ones; 2. let's reduce the number of big
>established format
>Not to mention that the package format is not the only thing that matters.
>It is the contents of the package, the rules, specs and standards that are
>followed that cause the most differences.
I aggree, and I'm hoping to resolve this issue
>Oh and I guess I'm missing something, otherwise why wo
I believe RPM is not suited well enough for this job, it tries to do
everything rather than doing one thing and doing it well. The package
format I'm proposing has a few features rpm does not.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
]] Eugene Gorodinsky
| However I'm not proposing to have a single true package format for all
| distributions. Rather my idea is to have a distribution-specific
| package format for packages that are distribution-specific, and a
| universal package format for packages that aren't specific.
Isn't
Eugene Gorodinsky, 2009-11-20 02:01:19 +0200 :
> There is a sort of oligopoly in linux because of package management.
> There are several main distros which have a lot of package maintainers
> and a lot of packages as a result of this. Smaller distros need to
> choose between compatibility with ex
Ben Finney wrote:
> Eugene Gorodinsky writes:
[...]
>
>> hopefully this discussion will be more welcome here. Constructive
>> crticism is welcome, so feel free to critique.
>
> To be honest, I'm not sure what response you expect to get. There's not
> much substantive to respond to in your messa
Eugene Gorodinsky writes:
> A while ago I participated in a discussion here about the debian
> package format. Quite recently I tried to spark up a discussion about
> package formats on the LSB list but did not get any replies
Can you point to the message (preferably via its Message-Id field) so
A while ago I participated in a discussion here about the debian
package format. Quite recently I tried to spark up a discussion about
package formats on the LSB list but did not get any replies, hopefully
this discussion will be more welcome here. Constructive crticism is
welcome, so feel free to
10 matches
Mail list logo
