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
9 matches
Mail list logo
