David Cantrell wrote:
>
> >> And you only gain these features on a 100% RPM-based system. So what's
> >> the point?
> >
> >The point is that the vast majority of people andvendors _want_ these
> >features. If your distribution doesn't support features like dependencies
> >and signed packages that's fine - use rpm2cpio to just get the files.
>
> And that's fine, but it shouldn't be in the standard because not all of
> those features are supported across distributions.
>
It needs to be. There is no way to make it reliable otherwise.
>
> There's really no difference there. If you specify RPM as the package format,
> then you are also saying RPM is the standard packaging system. Converters
> exist, but will not necessarily convert EVERYTHING between formats. Say you
> run Debian and you get an RPM from a commercial vendor. You convert the RPM
> to .DEB and install it. The installation goes fine, but you lost dependencies
> during the conversion, and the program doesn't run because you didn't meet the
> dependencies. So, the only way this will work is if all distributions fully
> support/base-on RPM as their packaging system. And how are dependencies
> going to flawlessly work unless we are all naming things exactly the same
> (files and packages)?
>
> The standardized package format should be lowest common denominator to allow
> flawless installation and removal on all distributions.
>
No, it shouldn't, because the lowest common denominator is far too low,
in no small part due to the existence of the distribution you have in
your .sig file.
-hpa
