On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 04:51:59PM -0500, David Douthitt scribbled:
> I seem to be somewhat alone in that I *LIKE* the *.lrp packaging;
> there is only one change I would make: rename the files from *.lrp to
> *.tgz. This adds the ability to know what the file format is, and
> allows Windows hosts to decipher the file automatically.
Too many package formats use .tgz as their name.
What if we started using bzip2 for our packages and called
them .tbz? Nobody uses .tbz for _anything_ not even bzip2'd
tar files.
> However, there is support for unpacking RPM and DEB files within
> busybox; I haven't played with them yet, but perhaps a new
> distribution might find a need for them.
It could probably be done in less space by shell scripts.
> I don't know about Debian packages, but RPMs are very nice for a full
> system, work fast, upgrade well, have dependency checking..... and
> also a huge database, lots of CPU overhead, and aren't usable with
> generic UNIX utilities like tar, gzip, and cpio...
I thought RPMs were tar.gz files with their own info in them,
like every other Linux and BSD package format in existance.
> Debian probably has a similar problem, yet I don't like their dpkg
> hardly at all.
I thought .deb was the same as my thought on RPM above...
> UNIX originally did EVERYTHING in files; I understand that Plan 9 (an
> AT&T post-UNIX OS development) goes even FARTHER with this idea. Why
> not use it in our packaging?
Use _what_ in our packaging? I don't know what you're talking about. :)
--
rick -- A mind is like a parachute... it only works when it's open.
ICQ# 1590117 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Help with LRP: http://lrp.c0wz.com Home page: http://www.c0wz.com
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
