Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[Dan Armak <ermak@netvision.net.il>]

On Tuesday 10 July 2001 09:00, you wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 08:52:13AM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:
> > I still don't think this should ever be done. Can anyone give me an
> > example of a situation where installing an RPM is better than all the
> > alternatives?
>
> For binary CDs of commercial software, RPM version 3 is the most
> widely-accepted packaging format.  So it makes sense for a lot of people
> making binaries for Linux, I suppose.  The Amiga SDK uses RPM to install.

It may make sense for them, because they only have to create one standard 
version of their CD. It doesn't for the end-recipients, who may or may not 
have RPM-based systems.

I agree that _some_ sort of standard binary package distribution is needed in 
som situations. However, RPM is very unsuitable for this. It has its own 
dependency implementation, and because different distributions and even 
different versions of the same distribution need different RPMs for some 
reason, this dependency system cannot become universal. A SuSE RPM doesn't 
always work on Redhat, even though both distros are completely RPM-based and 
may run exactly the same software.

Each distro has its own dependency database. The only really suitable kind of 
binary package is a simple tarball, to be extracted either at / or the 
install location (i.e. /usr). The local dependency system (Portage, RPM, 
whatever) can then generate MD% checksus and filelists and whatever else it 
may want. Such a package would either be self-contained (static) or be 
accompanied by the required libs in the same manner. In any case RPMs can't 
be used because they depend on other RPMs and have a complex system of 
virtual provides.

In any case a binary distribution can never be as flexible and (above all) 
'standard' as a source distribution. And if the 'commercial vendors' aren't 
satisfied, they can go open source.

(I like to write long letters :-)

Dan