This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Subject: Re: Proposal: Source file package format (summary) From: Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 02:09:31 +0100 (CET) Svante Signell writes: > 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 these tarballs add .spec and .dsc files together with > the original .tar.gz package and .diff.gz files. Then everybody > interested can build source/binary files for their own preferred > distribution using the same source files!! > > Also the GNU packages could contain .deb and .spec files, as is > already the case (.spec-files) for gnome packages. > > Advantages > ========== > ++ Enables convergence towards Linux Standard Base (LSB) > ++ Simplifies a lot for package maintainers, distribution specific > files, .spec, .dsc etc could be supplied by the different vendors. > ++ Faster feedback to package authors for patches incorporated into > the main distribution. > ++ Reduces the risk for patch divergence. (A lot of > distribution-specific patches) > + Useful for all .rpm-based systems, rpm -t? is already there. > + Useful for all .deb-based systems, with minor changes in relevant tools. > + Useful for .tar.gz-based systems, no changes necessary. > + ... > > Drawbacks > ========= > - No easy way to see if .spec and .dsc files are included in the > .tar.gz package (except using tar, but that requires a download) > - Distribution profiling more difficult :-( > - Package naming has to be agreed upon!! > - ... > > Another issue is to merge the binary file formats .deb and .rpm :-( > > I'm currently running Rawhide, Redhat 6.1, Debian 2.2, Suse 6.3 and > Mandrake 6.1 on different computers and disks, and would really > appreciate a common format at least for source packages. Most often I > recompile the sources myself. > > Please feel free to forward this mail to other interested parties not > reached by the list here. I would like to start the discussion on this > subject. No flame wars please! > > svante.signell@telia.com 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? - For experimental packages, use dselect to put a hold on the new version. - For debian, directory structure is important, not .dsc files. - Good suggestion, decision is up to the package author!! - How to ensure the .spec files are valid and functional? - Reducing incompatibility between the variants of the GNU/Linux OS'es is a useful job. - Hard to build good rpm's and deb's. Install to standard directories? What about FHS?? - GNU people participating in LSB work? - Debian is not GNU!? - After rms comments about LSB/GNU/Linux/... this thread turned into a flame war!! No more comments of technical nature any more. Sorry I thought it was an idea worth a better faith!! Binary formats: - Alien can be used, at least from .rpm to .deb - rpm format to be used for binary packages in LSB. People who replied: Iain Wade <iwade@optusnet.com.au> George Toft <grtoft@yahoo.com> Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@mit.edu> cyberclay <cclay@fastlane.net> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> Chris Siebenmann <cks@utcc.utoronto.ca> Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@transmeta.com> Flaming replies not included!! PS. This mail has been written using GNU Emacs and VM. Wonderful software. What about gemacs, a gnomified version!? DS. ===