Re: archive format

(copied to the list, as this point needs to be *really* clear, and you
didn't say otherwise :)

On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 22:09, Bishop Clark wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> So, you're advocating a storage-agnostic backward-compatible kind of new 
> format, like a deb++ that's also an RPM++ ?

Washes whiter than white ;)

But actually, no. I'm advocating simple stuff, things that should have
been done a long time ago IMHO but wasn't. Stuff like standardising the
dependancies, so I can build a distro-neutral (portable) LSB RPM and
have it slot into the users system nicely, and integrate with apt etc.

Maybe you already knew what I meant, in which case I apologise, but just
if other people didn't.....

It might be worth looking into standardising dependancy resolution
protocols as well, so for instance I can register a new package with
"The Network(tm)" and then debian users can apt-get it, gentoo users can
emerge it, Mandrake users can urpmi it, and I can roll-your-own-resolver
it, if you get my drift. That'd come later though.

The end result should be that we can all use the LSB RPM format, except
it'll actually be useful for people who can't or won't statically link
everything. That doesn't mean a new format. It might mean slightly
tweaking existing formats, but that's doable.

When cries of "Linux is hard, there are never RPMs for the programs I
want!!" are on the way out, then new formats can be introduced and the
free market can decide which gets popular. A "may the best man win" kind
of competition, and a round of beer to everybody else :)

That format could be designed here I suppose, but I'm yet to be
convinced that design-by-committee works for things like packaging
formats. 

Think W3C - they don't produce standard web servers or browsers, they
just provide a forum for various parties to hammer out agreements on how
things should be done, and it works well. Let's try that approach here.

> You have my vote.  My concerns are met.  8-)

I hope that's still the case :)

>   - bish