Universal package specification

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Eugene Gorodinsky <e.gorodinsky at gmail.com> [2009.11.28.1123 +0100]:
> Some packages are available in rpm only, others are available in
> dpkg only. Some packages are available in rpm and in dpkg, but not
> in the formats for other distributions.

To carry through with what you propose, you would need full support
from Debian, RedHat/Fedora, and probably Novell/OpenSuse. If the LSB
efforts are any measure (taking so long to specify standards that
they are readily superseeded before completion, e.g. sysv init vs.
event-based like upstart), then your chances are very slim.

Don't get me wrong, you have a noble goal, but if my experience with
vcs-pkg.org is any indication, then the aforementioned large distros
don't care.

Why should Debian, RedHat/Fedora, and probably Novell/OpenSuse
abandon their package formats and converge on a universal one?

How do you think you will address fundamental differences, like
single .spec files vs. the ./debian/ directory?

We would have to standardise names and version schematar— how?

> If those distributions start supporting either rpm or dpkg they
> will need to make sure they are fully compatible with debian or
> redhat, because you don't really know what it is that a package
> depends on: is it some particular files (e.g. config files) or is
> it the shared libraries provided or maybe it needs a certain dbus
> interface etc. Two packages depending on a third package may
> depend on different interfaces, thus it's not possible to replace
> this third package with a compatible one without closely studying
> what it is that all of the packages that have it in their
> dependencies really depend on. A more fine grained dependency
> mechanism would allow that.

This is where you'll need proper symbol versioning done right. How
do you want to get all the required knowledge for that out to the
people?

> The format by itself is useless without the package system
> supporting the features it provides, obviously. But the package
> system is powerless if the package format does not provide some
> necessary information to it. So the package format shouldn't be
> considered separately, but rather as part of the package
> management solution.

I would be surprised if Debian were to embrace file dependencies.

Ben Finney said, and you replied:
> > What does this mean? Can you give an example of “header data”
> > that is duplicated, and where this duplication occurs?
> >
> The control file in dpkg and apt Packages file for example.

All the data are maintained in a single location. They are then
cached in multiple locations. That's not duplication, IMHO.

-- 
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
 
until lions have their historians,
tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter.
                                                    -- african proverb
 
spamtraps: madduck.bogus at madduck.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/distributions/attachments/20091128/af6ad471/attachment-0001.pgp