Re: Packaging formats

[Matthew C Barry <muramas oitunix oit umass edu>]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, bighead wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Drazen Kacar wrote:
> 
> > bighead wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Sarel J. Botha wrote:
> > 
> > > > My proposal:
> > > > A packaging system designed to be 100% rpm, deb and
> > > > anything-else-compatible. In other words I compile my program once and it
> > 
> > All Unix variants which claim to be SYSV compatible have to implement
> > SYSV packaging utilities. Most of the commercial variants are in this
> > category (BSDI might not be, since it's BSD, after all). I don't know
> > what free BSD variants use, but I think they have their methods.
> > 
> > > I think thats why we have the true universal packaging format
> > >
> > > "foo.tar.gz"
> > 
> > It's a problem for big things, like Gnome. Very big problem. Nobody
> > wants to compile from tarballs.
> > 
> > -- 
> >  .-.   .-.    I don't work for my employer.
> > (_  \ /  _)
> >      |        dave@srce.hr
> >      |        dave@fly.srk.fer.hr
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > To unsubscribe: mail gnome-devel-list-request@gnome.org with "unsubscribe"
> > as the Subject.
> > 
> Hey! Who said tarballs have to distribute source code. Then can be used
> for only binaries and a Makefile for only installing binaries.
> 
> PEACE
> Archit
> 

um.. you're missing the POINT of packaging systems, dude.


> 
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe: mail gnome-devel-list-request@gnome.org with "unsubscribe"
> as the Subject.
> 
> 

-----------------------
       agent z
erisian hacker alliance
 muramas@linuxfreak.com

  knowledge is power
   nothing is sacred