[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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.
No, there is only one: a file that has been created by tar and
compressed by gzip. Everything else is a file.
It is COMMON and well-understood and used by EVERYONE. Every serious
unpacker for the Windows/DOS/BeOS/UNIX..... platform will understand a
*.tgz file...
If you make one up, then no one understands it - sort of like *.lrp
right now.
Also, any unpacker/archive tool needs to be able to handle problems
and bombs - if the <pkg>.list file is missing, or the <pkg>.help file
is missing, or in fact if *ANY* file is missing, it should be able to
handle it. That's one of the big problems with lrpkg: a missing
*.help file makes it crash; I think a missing *.version file does too.
> What if we started using bzip2 for our packages and called
> them .tbz? Nobody uses .tbz for _anything_ not even bzip2'd
> tar files.
Right. And nobody will be able to decipher them on other platforms
either.
> > 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.
They're not; I just checked. Usually, one uses rpm2cpio to create a
"standard" format file.
> > 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...
It may be somewhat; I think tar worked, I'm not sure.
> > 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. :)
UNIX originally did EVERYTHING in files .... why not use [files] in
our packaging?
So... NO special format, NO special databases, NO special "support"
files needed, NO anything - just tar, gzip, and files.
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
