Re: archive format

On 10 Mar 2003 20:48:11 +0000
Mike Hearn <[email protected]> wrote:

> Because really, although I agree in principle, there are lots of RPMs
> out there and they're not going to go away. So we need to account for
> all these kinds of packages.

I stated that i think the current format should become just a
recommendation, and that we should allow other archiving formats as
well.

We can still recommend that the rpm archive format (mutated cpio's) be
used, this will retain 100% compatability with rpm packages.

People forever have been arguing about tar v's cpio, gzip vs bzip2, .deb
vs .tgz vs .rpm. The lsb comes along and says this is the only format
you may use.

Can you see how some people are going to disagree with you, and those
disagreements arent going to go away ?

Can you see that without widespread support the lsb standard isnt a
standard, and therefore has failed.

Anyway, the benifits of supporting existing rpm's (and nobody said they
wouldnt be supported) should be weighed against getting support from
non-rpm distributions.

As it stands, non-rpm distributions are going to continue to make
a half-hearted effort at supporting the lsb, and rpm distributions are
going to continue to see the lsb-rpm as validation to their choise of
using rpm as a packaging format.

Your only going to standardise rpm packages, not linux packages.

So tell me again, why do you think only one archiving format should be
supported ? 


Im a Free Software person myself, when i want compatability i use
autoconf, and send the source code, that voids the need for this
lsb stuff.

The lsb is currently only aimed at open source people, oepn source
people are more tolerant of binary only stuff, and hence need the lsb
magic to replace autoconf.

If you want the standard to be successfull then you need look further
than commercial rpm based distributions.



Glenn