Universal package specification

[Ben Finney]

Eugene Gorodinsky <e.gorodinsky at gmail.com> writes:

> I believe one of the main problems on Linux is the lack of a universal
> package format that works on all major distributions.

Could you clarify why this is a problem, and for whom? I'm sure we could
all imagine reasons, but it would be good to be explicit about what
problem is being solved here.

> Existing package formats were developed for specific distributions and
> don't offer the features required by software that is not
> distribution-specific. However most software isn't really distribution
> specific.

Perhaps not, but the requirements for getting that software installed
and working on a particular distribution *is* specific to the packaging
system used on that distribution. That's a big part of the problem
addressed by a packaging system (note: the whole system, not just the
format of package data).

> A lot of times the only difference between software packaged for one
> distribution and the same software packaged for another distribution
> is the directories this software is installed into.

I don't find this to be a fair representation. Rather, software packaged
for different packaging systems contains very different *instructions*
to the packaging systems, even if the software work ends up in similar
filesystem locations. The filesystem locations are one — important but
not dominant — aspect of the information in a package.

> Also since packages are not only distributed by themselves, but (and
> this happens more and more often) through repositories, some of the
> header data in packages such as rpm or dpkg packages is duplicated.

What does this mean? Can you give an example of “header data” that is
duplicated, and where this duplication occurs?

-- 
 \        “The problem with television is that the people must sit and |
  `\    keep their eyes glued on a screen: the average American family |
_o__)                 hasn't time for it.” —_The New York Times_, 1939 |
Ben Finney