Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

Stephane Bortzmeyer schrieb: > below. RPM is the defacto standard on Linux [sic] and supported either > directly, or indirectly by the widest number of distributions. The statement is perfectly true, Debian supports RPM with aliens help. > The intent is to in the future replace this format with

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Tue, 08 May 2001, Arthur Korn wrote: > Stephane Bortzmeyer schrieb: > > below. RPM is the defacto standard on Linux [sic] and supported either > > directly, or indirectly by the widest number of distributions. > > The statement is perfectly true, Debian supports RPM with aliens > help. I'd li

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

Previously Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Is it true that Debian approved this "standard"? Yes. Basically we needed a standard that people could accept and that could be implemented quickly. Obviously rpm was the only solution, and a subset of rpm is used to make sure that that will work on non-rpm

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > Since the LSB is mainly useful for binary-only distributors, we need not get > annoyed over their choice of rpm. After all, it makes more sense, since most > distributors already have staff that knows how to build rpms anyway. > So the LSB is just about con

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:26:58AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > > Since the LSB is mainly useful for binary-only distributors, we need not get > > annoyed over their choice of rpm. After all, it makes more sense, since most > > distributors already have st

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The last version of the LSB > says: > Currently the LSB does not officially specify a package format; > however, the recommended package format is RPM (Version 3) with some > restrictions li

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:07:57PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > I agree. The LSB should contrast/compare features of both and come up > with a superset of both (possibly favoring ones implementation over the > other). Most importantly, the metadata format needs to be standardized. > That is the key

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > The LSB doesn't need the full power of a complex packaging system, and it is > unlikely they would get it right without really using it. I disagree with that. The people who are involved with that particular bit of LSB happen to be a dpkg maintainer, the apt au

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 12:26:35PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > I think it makes more sense for the LSB to define an intersection of > required features, and use only that for their stuff. Then other people can > easily implement this minimal interface or convert to/from it. > > The LSB do

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Wed, 9 May 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:07:57PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > I agree. The LSB should contrast/compare features of both and come up > > with a superset of both (possibly favoring ones implementation over the > > other). Most importantly, the metadat

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

I can't speak for Debian on the LSB in general but I am the moderator of the taskforce working on the LSB's "Lowest Common Denominator" first try at a common packaging system. We do have a FAQ online in the archives of our mailing list that w

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Wed, 9 May 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > There are two ways to handle those packages on Debian systems > now: one is using alien, and the other is using Albert's dpkg-rpm > patch which makes it possible for dpkg to use those packages > directly. Um, where is this patch?

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 01:08:21PM -0400, Albert den Haan wrote: > The LSB's LCD ("Lowest Common Denominator") is working on a simple package > system that is the *intersection* of capabilities the major ones in current > use. Yes the RPM V3 [1] package archive file format is being used (as > *.ls

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:14:20PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > this choice of using the rpm binary format should be reconsidered > IMNSHO. i don't really care whether you use the debian ar+tar+gzip, > or just plain .tar.gz, just use something i can extract *anywhere* > with the most basic and sta

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

Its been a while, but if I remember correctly, RPMs are in cpio format. Tim Ethan Benson wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 01:08:21PM -0400, Albert den Haan wrote: The LSB's LCD ("Lowest Common Denominator") is working on a simple package system that is the *intersection* of capabilities the major one

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 05:47:00PM -0500, Sam TH wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:14:20PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > this choice of using the rpm binary format should be reconsidered > > IMNSHO. i don't really care whether you use the debian ar+tar+gzip, > > or just plain .tar.gz, just use

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 06:32:14PM -0400, Timothy H. Keitt wrote: > Its been a while, but if I remember correctly, RPMs are in cpio format. no there not, they are in a goofed up customized cpio format that cpio no longer recognizes. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgpSK7KOzX

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Wed, 9 May 2001, Timothy H. Keitt wrote: > Its been a while, but if I remember correctly, RPMs are in cpio format. $ cpio -idv -F gnocatan-client-0.6.1-2.alpha.rpm cpio: warning: skipped 61098 bytes of junk cpio: warning: archive header has reverse byte-order cpio: [binary garbage output snipp

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 05:44:17PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, 9 May 2001, Timothy H. Keitt wrote: > > > Its been a while, but if I remember correctly, RPMs are in cpio format. > > $ cpio -idv -F gnocatan-client-0.6.1-2.alpha.rpm > cpio: warning: skipped 61098 bytes of junk > cpio: war

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:14:20PM -0800 wrote: > this choice of using the rpm binary format should be reconsidered > IMNSHO. i don't really care whether you use the debian ar+tar+gzip, > or just plain .tar.gz, just use something i can extract *anywhere* > with the most basic and standard tools, with

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Wed, 9 May 2001, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 06:32:14PM -0400, Timothy H. Keitt wrote: >> Its been a while, but if I remember correctly, RPMs are in cpio >> format. > > no there not, they are in a goofed up customized cpio format that > cpio no longer recognizes. http://www.

Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 01:15:46PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > The LSB doesn't need the full power of a complex packaging system, > > and it is unlikely they would get it right without really using > > it. > > I disagree with that. The people who are inv