Universal package specification

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Eugene Gorodinsky <e.gorodinsky at gmail.com> [2009.11.29.2119 +0100]:
> How the distribution-specific packages are managed is entierly up
> to those distributions. On the universal format side, the dbus
> interface type can simply be added to the next version of the
> format. Shared libraries can not be installed using the universal
> package format, because that kind of defeats the purpose of
> standardising on libraries. For DBus it's different.

In that case, I am not sure I understand your proposal. I am sorry
if I have hijacked the discussion a bit nonetheless.

Do you think you can possibly conjure an example of, say, libfoo,
a hypothetical library that offers its services to C/C++ programs as
a .so file, and also has a dbus interface?

How would the universal package spec for this library look like
(approximately)?

How *could* Fedora, Debian, and maybe Gentoo integrate those specs
with their own package systems/formats? Don't worry if you don't
know the details of the three, the general gist will do.

Thanks,

-- 
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
 
philosophy: unintelligible answers to insoluble problems.
 
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/20091130/e3b85fde/attachment-0001.pgp