Re: Packaging formats

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

On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Alan Shutko wrote:

> Matthew C Barry <muramas@oitunix.oit.umass.edu> writes:
> 
> > Packaging is definitely cool, but .deb is LIGHT YEARS ahead of .rpm.
> 
> This really should be decided by the LSB people.  But I'm interested
> in why .deb is "light-years" ahead of .rpm.
> 
> > mean, keeping rpm compatibility is... neato.  But... debian packages are
> > simply better, in many respects (not the least of which is that if you
> > want to install an rpm, you need to find it and dl it, whereas if you want
> > to install a .deb, its "apt-get install <package-name>" =).
> 
> This is not a function of the packaging.  It's a function of
> infrastructure which could be adapted to RPM, and the fact that
> debian-based dists haven't diverged as much as RPM-based ones (yet),
> so for now debian packages can be used on any debian-based dist.

thats nice, but.. bottom line is: debs are easy, rpms arent. if you feel
like adapting the infrastructure to rpms, go ahead.. but whats the point?

also, who are these LSB people, and why do i care what they think?


> 
> -- 
> Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
> 246 days, 23 hours, 13 minutes, 5 seconds till we run away.
> All a man needs out of life is a place to sit 'n' spit in the fire.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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