On Fri, Dec 31, 1999 at 06:36:43PM -0500, Paul M. Foster wrote:
snipped much of earlier conversation for sake of bandwidth...
Here's another gripe about dselect. When I install, dselect asks me for
the root directory on the CD-ROM. How the hell do I know?
The nice part about it (without
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999, Fish Smith wrote:
dyson_ There are two really horrible things about Debian,
dyson_ though. 1) The
dyson_ dselect
dyson_ package handler. I'm speaking from Debian 2.1 here.
dyson_ It has a very
dyson_ primitive interface and is incredibly tedious. Maybe
dyson_ they're doing
something i'd really like is web integration with the package management,
its really cool to be able to click on a tardist file (IRIX package
format) and have it launch the software manager (X based) and prompt to
setup/install the package. i read i think on linux.com on how to add this
On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, aphro wrote:
On 30 Dec 1999, Nick Moffitt wrote:
nick Quoting Svante Signell:
nick - rpm format to be used for binary packages in LSB.
nick
nick I beg your pardon?
RPM is one of the biggest pieces of crap ive seen..i spent 20 minutes
working on a
Big problem is getting guys like LSB to buy the .deb
format. I haven't
researched it, but even guys on the Red Hat list say
it's better.
There are two really horrible things about Debian,
though. 1) The
dselect
package handler. I'm speaking from Debian 2.1 here.
It has a very
primitive interface
There's a version of linuxconf undergoing testing for Debian in potato right
now.
What's RedHat got that's better than dselect? I haven't seen any decent
tools for RPM's that provide:
1. Integration with an outside program to download all necessary files
from a package mirror.
2. Listings of
*- On 31 Dec, Fish Smith wrote about Re: Proposal: Source file package format
Big problem is getting guys like LSB to buy the .deb
format. I haven't
researched it, but even guys on the Red Hat list say
it's better.
There are two really horrible things about Debian,
though. 1) The
dselect
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999, Nate Duehr wrote:
There's a version of linuxconf undergoing testing for Debian in potato right
now.
Good news. I'm glad somebody is sharing tools, instead of the not made
here syndrome.
What's RedHat got that's better than dselect? I haven't seen any decent
tools
Hi,
Here is a summary of the proposal for a common source file format:
- Good idea!
- Waste of time, Use configure; make; make install, Most packages are for Unix,
not only Linux.
- Source management problems, no-one is interested in BOTH .rpms and .debs!
What about experimental versions?
-
Quoting Svante Signell:
- rpm format to be used for binary packages in LSB.
I beg your pardon?
--
CrackMonkey.Org - Non-sequitur arguments and ad-hominem personal attacks
LinuxCabal.Org - Co-location facilities and meeting space
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
, redhat-devel-list@redhat.com,
debian-user@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
suse-linux-e@suse.com, expert@linux-mandrake.com, gnome-list@gnome.org,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [expert] Re: Proposal: Source file package format (summary
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 09:46:10PM -0500, Jean-Michel Dault wrote:
What I would suggest is having the .tar.gz source file, plus another file,
with a .build-rh.rpm , .build-mdk.rpm .build.deb extension.
That way, the author only has to maintain his source code, support for
particular distributions
On 30 Dec 1999, Nick Moffitt wrote:
nick Quoting Svante Signell:
nick - rpm format to be used for binary packages in LSB.
nick
nick I beg your pardon?
RPM is one of the biggest pieces of crap ive seen..i spent 20 minutes
working on a redhat5.1 machine(from telnet) and it about drove me MAD,
Hi,
Here is a summary of the proposal for a common source file format:
- Good idea!
- Waste of time, Use configure; make; make install, Most packages are for
Unix, not only Linux.
Who cares about Unix? the sooner Linux kills it the best.
- Source management problems, no-one is
dpkg and rpm and slp(stampede) people should get together and work out a
new format for future linux distributions..take the best from everything,
and have it be a neutral name that gives credit to any 1 group/company
for comming up with it. i dont have experience using slp but from what i
read it
[The lists redhat-devel-list@redhat.com and gnome-list@gnome.org would
not let me post to them. If you can, would you please forward this
reply to those lists?]
If people in the LSB are now interested in working with the GNU
Project, that's a good thing. Starting with this basic willingness to
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Source file package format
++ Enables convergence towards Linux Standard Base (LSB)
Reducing incompatibility between the variants of the GNU operating
system that use Linux as the kernel is a useful job. The GNU Project
... the LSB is working with GNU Project developers, especially from
Debian. ...
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ Dylan's private email is quoted with his permission ]
One comment that you probably know by now: Debian is not the GNU
project. There is no official relation between
++ Enables convergence towards Linux Standard Base (LSB)
Reducing incompatibility between the variants of the GNU operating
system that use Linux as the kernel is a useful job. The GNU Project
would be happy to cooperate with other people on this, if they
approach us in a cooperative spirit
Greetings,
What do you think of the following proposal:
I order to simplify for package authors/maintainers and to reduce
duplication, distribute the source file packages in .tar.gz (or .tar.bz2)
format. This avoids the need to provide both .tar.gz, .src.rpm and
debian source files.
Included in
Svante Signell wrote:
What do you think of the following proposal:
I order to simplify for package authors/maintainers and to reduce
duplication, distribute the source file packages in .tar.gz (or .tar.bz2)
format. This avoids the need to provide both .tar.gz, .src.rpm and
debian
Svante Signell wrote:
Greetings,
What do you think of the following proposal:
In order to simplify for package authors/maintainers and to reduce
duplication,
distribute the source file packages in .tar.gz (or .tar.bz2) format. This
avoids
the need to provide both .tar.gz, .src.rpm and
22 matches
Mail list logo
