On Tuesday 18 May 2004 07:00, Paul Johnson wrote: >> Dominique Dumont wrote: >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes: >>> >> #rpm -ivh myproduct-xxx-xx.rpm >>> > >>> > As other people have written doing this is not a good thing. Put >>> > yourself in the other position. I have a .deb file from Debian. >>> > I >>> > want to install it on a RH system. Should I insist that you must >>> > use >>> > dpkg to install it there? That would be just as silly as >>> > insisting >>> > the reverse. A native packaging is always best. >>> >>> Sure. Be if one can easily install rpm packages on a Debian system, >>> this would be a good message sent to the corporate world. >> >> Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote the following a while back. >> I am very interested in how it turns out. >> >> http://lists.progeny.com/archive/discover-workers/200310/msg00000.html >> >> Summary snippet: >> >> We are also working with various parties to add/merge RPM support >> into the mainline APT, to allow Debian- and RPM-based >> distributions to be managed using a single APT codebase, and >> possibly even to allow Debian and RPM packages to coexist side by >> side. This work also aims to merge our various APT extensions >> (e.g., support for authenticated APT repos) into the mainline >> APT. > > Wow, Ian's being rather optimistic in thinking that RPM can overcome > it's own shortcomings to stop sucking. Such as, 1) distro-dependent > RPMs, RPM isn't standardized like Deb is. 2) Naming conventions. RPM > isn't standardized. 3) Per-file dependencies need to be eliminated in > RPM, it's a major contributor to problems 1 and 2. 4) QA in RPM based > distros is apparently non-existent, contributing to problems 1, 2 and > 3 and making headlines as it does. > > The clean fix would be to go back in time, kill the people who thought > RPM was a good idea and make sure the Debian folks do what they did > anyway, but we can't have everything. 8:o) > >>> Currently there is big chicken and egg problem with Debian in the >>> corporate world. Corporate guys want to be able to install software >>> from ISV (like Oracle). >> >> I understand what you are saying. But they can install oracle and >> others today. My comment is that they want a vendor supported >> installation of the vendor application. Not an installation that a >> Debian expert made happen. > > It's 2004. Linux is the second most common OS and Debian is the > distro with the largest Linux market share from what I've been hearing > lately. There is *ZERO* excuse for companies supporting Linux not to > have .debs if they're distributing in binary form, they need to > Debianize or hit the grave. > >> If you alien the RH package and try to install it on Debian it will >> install fine. Programs will work. But then eventually you will >> install a Debian package which requires not ncurses4 but libncurses4. > > Number 2 and Number 4 from above apply. > >> Personally, yes. I think many people have that ideal. It is written >> into the Social Contract. But the recent Debian Social Contract vote >> casts that as a majority opinion into doubt. So now I don't know. A >> contingent of vocal DDs would certainly say no. > > My understanding is this is a vocal minority decreasing in size as > more good, free software comes out. Proprietary software is sort of a > band-aid for a real solution, or a toy for after work. >
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
