something i'd really like is web integration with the package management,
its really cool to be able to click on a tardist file (IRIX package
format) and have it launch the software manager (X based) and prompt to
setup/install the package. i read i think on linux.com on how to add this
functional
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999, Fish Smith wrote:
dyson_ >>There are two really horrible things about Debian,
dyson_ >>though. 1) The
dyson_ >>dselect
dyson_ >>package handler. I'm speaking from Debian 2.1 here.
dyson_ >>It has a very
dyson_ >>primitive interface and is incredibly tedious. Maybe
dyson_ >>the
On Fri, Dec 31, 1999 at 06:36:43PM -0500, Paul M. Foster wrote:
> Here's another gripe about dselect. When I install, dselect asks me for
> the root directory on the CD-ROM. How the hell do I know?
The nice part about it (without having looked at the code, only the user
interface) is that it a
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999, Nate Duehr wrote:
> There's a version of linuxconf undergoing testing for Debian in potato right
> now.
>
Good news. I'm glad somebody is sharing tools, instead of the "not made
here" syndrome.
> What's RedHat got that's better than dselect? I haven't seen any decent
>
*- On 31 Dec, Fish Smith wrote about "Re: Proposal: Source file package format "
>>Big problem is getting guys like LSB to buy the .deb
>>format. I haven't
>>researched it, but even guys on the Red Hat list say
>>it's better.
>
>>There are two
There's a version of linuxconf undergoing testing for Debian in potato right
now.
What's RedHat got that's better than dselect? I haven't seen any decent
tools for RPM's that provide:
1. Integration with an outside program to download all necessary files
from a package mirror.
2. Listings of a
>Big problem is getting guys like LSB to buy the .deb
>format. I haven't
>researched it, but even guys on the Red Hat list say
>it's better.
>There are two really horrible things about Debian,
>though. 1) The
>dselect
>package handler. I'm speaking from Debian 2.1 here.
>It has a very
>primitive i
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, aphro wrote:
> On 30 Dec 1999, Nick Moffitt wrote:
>
> nick >Quoting Svante Signell:
> nick >> - rpm format to be used for binary packages in LSB.
> nick >
> nick >I beg your pardon?
>
> RPM is one of the biggest pieces of crap ive seen..i spent 20 minutes
> workin
dpkg and rpm and slp(stampede) people should get together and work out a
new format for future linux distributions..take the best from everything,
and have it be a neutral name that gives credit to any 1 group/company
for comming up with it. i dont have experience using slp but from what i
read it
>
> Hi,
>
> Here is a summary of the proposal for a common source file format:
>
> - Good idea!
> - Waste of time, Use configure; make; make install, Most packages are for
> Unix, not only Linux.
Who cares about Unix? the sooner Linux kills it the best.
> - Source management problems, no-one
On 30 Dec 1999, Nick Moffitt wrote:
nick >Quoting Svante Signell:
nick >> - rpm format to be used for binary packages in LSB.
nick >
nick > I beg your pardon?
RPM is one of the biggest pieces of crap ive seen..i spent 20 minutes
working on a redhat5.1 machine(from telnet) and it about drove me M
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 09:46:10PM -0500, Jean-Michel Dault wrote:
>What I would suggest is having the .tar.gz source file, plus another file,
>with a .build-rh.rpm , .build-mdk.rpm .build.deb extension.
>
>That way, the author only has to maintain his source code, support for
>particular distribut
redhat-list@redhat.com, redhat-devel-list@redhat.com,
debian-user@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
suse-linux-e@suse.com, expert@linux-mandrake.com, gnome-list@gnome.org,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [expert] Re: Proposal:
Quoting Svante Signell:
> - rpm format to be used for binary packages in LSB.
I beg your pardon?
--
CrackMonkey.Org - Non-sequitur arguments and ad-hominem personal attacks
LinuxCabal.Org - Co-location facilities and meeting space
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Hi,
Here is a summary of the proposal for a common source file format:
- Good idea!
- Waste of time, Use configure; make; make install, Most packages are for Unix,
not only Linux.
- Source management problems, no-one is interested in BOTH .rpms and .debs!
What about experimental versions?
- For
[The lists redhat-devel-list@redhat.com and gnome-list@gnome.org would
not let me post to them. If you can, would you please forward this
reply to those lists?]
If people in the LSB are now interested in working with the GNU
Project, that's a good thing. Starting with this basic willingness to
c
>> ... the LSB is working with GNU Project developers, especially from
>> Debian. ...
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ Dylan's private email is quoted with his permission ]
> One comment that you probably know by now: Debian is not the GNU
> project. There is no official relation be
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Subject: Re: Proposal: Source file package format
>>
>> ++ Enables convergence towards Linux Standard Base (LSB)
> Reducing incompatibility between the variants of the GNU operating
> system that use Linux as th
++ Enables convergence towards Linux Standard Base (LSB)
Reducing incompatibility between the variants of the GNU operating
system that use Linux as the kernel is a useful job. The GNU Project
would be happy to cooperate with other people on this, if they
approach us in a cooperative spirit r
Svante Signell wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> What do you think of the following proposal:
>
> In order to simplify for package authors/maintainers and to reduce
> duplication,
> distribute the source file packages in .tar.gz (or .tar.bz2) format. This
> avoids
> the need to provide both .tar.gz, .src.
Svante Signell wrote:
>What do you think of the following proposal:
>
>I order to simplify for package authors/maintainers and to reduce
>duplication, distribute the source file packages in .tar.gz (or .tar.bz2)
>format. This avoids the need to provide both .tar.gz, .src.rpm and
>debian
Greetings,
What do you think of the following proposal:
I order to simplify for package authors/maintainers and to reduce
duplication, distribute the source file packages in .tar.gz (or .tar.bz2)
format. This avoids the need to provide both .tar.gz, .src.rpm and
debian source files.
Included in
22 matches
Mail list logo
