From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_12_24,DMARC_NONE, INVALID_DATE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from mailgw1.netvision.net.il ([194.90.1.14]) by cvs.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 3.30 #1) id 15Jf9M-0006yU-00 for gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2001 11:48:49 -0600 Received: from localhost (ras4-p82.rlz.netvision.net.il [62.0.85.210]) by mailgw1.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA23092 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 20:47:55 +0300 (IDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Dan Armak To: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <000401c10896$378a1f40$6669a8c0@ortega-lt.hsdrs.com> In-Reply-To: <000401c10896$378a1f40$6669a8c0@ortega-lt.hsdrs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01070920485302.00654@localhost> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@cvs.gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@cvs.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon Jul 9 11:49:02 2001 X-Original-Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 20:48:53 +0300 X-Archives-Salt: 19994a04-f37a-4e46-a0c0-adc6e815dfec X-Archives-Hash: c76ea2dbc45becff49bde3f7392216e7 On Monday 09 July 2001 19:43, you wrote: > I was reading in LinuxToday some comments about the LSB and just about > everyone is singing praises to it. > > You may get the specs at > > http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/ > > There are a couple of topics there that would be of concern for Gentoo. One > is the topic of packaging. Packaging addresses binaries and states that RPM > is to be supported. The other is system Init. > > The pages in the specs (PDF format) are not numbered. The section on > packaging start in page 229 (chapter 13) and the one on system init on page > 352 (Chapter 18). I got there using the thumbnails. This is a long > document, almost 400 pages. > > > _______________________________________________ > gentoo-dev mailing list > gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org > http://cvs.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev With all due respect to LSB, I really don't think RPM is a Good Thing. At all. Actually RPM as it exists now doesn't provide the features needed to use it everywhere. Not only Gentoo but Slackware, Debian, etc.... don't support RPM - at least not as their main, preferred way of packaging. The whole point of having many contending distros around is for differences - customization being an issue. The LSB wants things to be _standard_. This means programs working out-of-the-box. In this case, distributed packages working on all distributions. But there's already one such method that always works - configure; make; make install. If LSB says RPMs are better than that, it discourages practicing what is the heart of Portage - automatized downloading, compiling & installing. The LSB should push for standardized results, not for a standard way of achieving them. Whoever wants a pre-compiled package will eventually be able to get it via Portage which already supports binary packages. Whoever gets a package from its home site as source is thus encouraged to write an ebuild for it and give back to the community. RPM availability would desatroy that - Portage and emerge would simply become much less important. Of course, choice is important. So whoever thinks RPMs are good for Gentoo can go ahead and modify Portage/emerge to support them. But people who still think actually compiling a package with the correct optimizations for you CPU is best shouldn't be branded non-standard. (Or non-mainstream ). Well, that's my opinion, for what it's worth. (phew!) Dan Armak