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=1.4 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_06_12,DMARC_NONE, INVALID_DATE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from mailgw2.netvision.net.il ([194.90.1.9]) by cvs.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 3.30 #1) id 15Juub-0003Ir-00 for gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 04:38:38 -0600 Received: from localhost (ras6-p97.rlz.netvision.net.il [62.0.86.225]) by mailgw2.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA24996 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:40:02 +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> <01071008521301.00552@localhost> <20010710000006.I29013@cvs.gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20010710000006.I29013@cvs.gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01071013373600.00550@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: Tue Jul 10 04:39:02 2001 X-Original-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:37:36 +0300 X-Archives-Salt: 2f3e1064-2b19-4029-94a1-cbda153500a9 X-Archives-Hash: 8be3641a066d55b70516cfd2deb87d52 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