Comments on: Packaging standards, again http://www.happyassassin.net/2009/05/15/packaging-standards-again/ Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:42:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: bogdanbiv http://www.happyassassin.net/2009/05/15/packaging-standards-again/comment-page-1/#comment-834 bogdanbiv Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:34:50 +0000 http://www.happyassassin.net/?p=680#comment-834 Regarding "Anyone who’s looked at the OpenSUSE packaging guidelines, for instance, and compared them to the Mandriva or Fedora ones, will know that there’s a huge difference between a ‘good OpenSUSE package’ and a ‘good Mandriva / Fedora package’." Here's what the top of the page http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/Guidelines reads right now: "This text was imported from Fedora Guidelines and should not be used for openSUSE packaging before review! Please follow the SUSE Packaging rules for now. If you wish to help, see Packaging/Status for more info [at the bottom of the page] "We've established a read-only git repo for tracking changes and differences between the distros. Pages from both wikis are repeatedly imported into this repository." I really don't follow why packaging guidelines need to be so different, and incompatible. What i see right now are efforts to unify these guidelines. To an extent, I tend to think of them as just another upstream project, that the maintainers contribute to. Even if there would be major differences between two versions -but I can't find any-, I hope they will merge eventually. As these differences seem central to you argument, I'm not sure I can follow through the rest of your essay. Regarding “Anyone who’s looked at the OpenSUSE packaging guidelines, for instance, and compared them to the Mandriva or Fedora ones, will know that there’s a huge difference between a ‘good OpenSUSE package’ and a ‘good Mandriva / Fedora package’.”

Here’s what the top of the page http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/Guidelines reads right now:
“This text was imported from Fedora Guidelines and should not be used for openSUSE packaging before review! Please follow the SUSE Packaging rules for now. If you wish to help, see Packaging/Status for more info
[at the bottom of the page]
“We’ve established a read-only git repo for tracking changes and differences between the distros. Pages from both wikis are repeatedly imported into this repository.”

I really don’t follow why packaging guidelines need to be so different, and incompatible. What i see right now are efforts to unify these guidelines. To an extent, I tend to think of them as just another upstream project, that the maintainers contribute to. Even if there would be major differences between two versions -but I can’t find any-, I hope they will merge eventually.

As these differences seem central to you argument, I’m not sure I can follow through the rest of your essay.

]]> By: adamw http://www.happyassassin.net/2009/05/15/packaging-standards-again/comment-page-1/#comment-782 adamw Fri, 22 May 2009 16:23:29 +0000 http://www.happyassassin.net/?p=680#comment-782 well, up to a point, lord copper. I always thought it was a bit of a cynical move by the LSB to adopt a 'standard' package format that they knew full well was most definitely *not* in position to be a standard, and was very unlikely ever to be. They knew before and after ratifying that position that there wasn't a whelk's chance in a supernova that Debian would go "oh, alright then" and switch to RPM. well, up to a point, lord copper. I always thought it was a bit of a cynical move by the LSB to adopt a ‘standard’ package format that they knew full well was most definitely *not* in position to be a standard, and was very unlikely ever to be. They knew before and after ratifying that position that there wasn’t a whelk’s chance in a supernova that Debian would go “oh, alright then” and switch to RPM.

]]> By: ed http://www.happyassassin.net/2009/05/15/packaging-standards-again/comment-page-1/#comment-781 ed Fri, 22 May 2009 10:43:21 +0000 http://www.happyassassin.net/?p=680#comment-781 This distribution-neutral package format already exists and is standardized by the Linux Standard Base. It is the old RPM v3 format (somewhat different to the RPM v4 used natively by RPM-based distros). As usual, it's not a technical problem, but a social one: getting people to use the standard that already exists. This distribution-neutral package format already exists and is standardized by the Linux Standard Base. It is the old RPM v3 format (somewhat different to the RPM v4 used natively by RPM-based distros).

As usual, it’s not a technical problem, but a social one: getting people to use the standard that already exists.

]]> By: boklm http://www.happyassassin.net/2009/05/15/packaging-standards-again/comment-page-1/#comment-775 boklm Wed, 20 May 2009 07:46:46 +0000 http://www.happyassassin.net/?p=680#comment-775 For distribution-independent software installation, klik2 seems to be very interesting : http://klik.atekon.de/wiki/index.php/Main_Page For distribution-independent software installation, klik2 seems to be very interesting :
http://klik.atekon.de/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

]]> By: Doug http://www.happyassassin.net/2009/05/15/packaging-standards-again/comment-page-1/#comment-767 Doug Sun, 17 May 2009 18:05:41 +0000 http://www.happyassassin.net/?p=680#comment-767 Oh. look that msg has finally turned up as msg # 29 .. http://lunduke.com/?p=526&cpage=1#comment-3117 Oh. look that msg has finally turned up as msg # 29 ..

http://lunduke.com/?p=526&cpage=1#comment-3117

]]> By: Doug http://www.happyassassin.net/2009/05/15/packaging-standards-again/comment-page-1/#comment-763 Doug Sat, 16 May 2009 14:54:33 +0000 http://www.happyassassin.net/?p=680#comment-763 Bryan Lunduke does seem be a trite sensitive to any constructive criticism, see comment # 26 ... http://pastebin.com/f1e04f482 Bryan Lunduke does seem be a trite sensitive to any constructive criticism, see comment # 26 …

http://pastebin.com/f1e04f482

]]>