On Tue, Apr 02, 2002, Dave Vogel wrote:
> I really like the concept of the openpkg system. However, I would
> recommend that it is named something other than "rpm" to avoid confusion
> with the existing Linux package manager. Is it for historical reasons
> that you kept the name "rpm"?
It's because the packaging facility of OpenPKG actually _IS_ RPM,
although with extensions. But our RPM is not incompatible with a plain
RPM, so we kept the name "rpm" for the binary. Even the binary format of
our packages is plain RPMv4 format. Additionally, we kept "rpm" and did
not use "openpkg" because we are currently writing a frontend for "rpm"
which is (obviously) named "openpkg". So we would get a conflict in the
near future.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
Developer Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
