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
21 matches
Mail list logo
