Universal package specification

[Eugene Gorodinsky]

2009/11/29 martin f krafft <madduck at madduck.net>:
> also sprach Eugene Gorodinsky <e.gorodinsky at gmail.com> [2009.11.29.1948 +0100]:
>> Not really. It's possible to standardise just on shared libraries for
>> example. Providing the software is self-contained, it will be able to
>> work on compliant distributions if it just uses those libraries to
>> interact with the system and nothing else. Add DBus interfaces to that
>> and you can give developers more freedom.
>
> So we should have different package formats for shared libs and dbus
> interfaces?
>
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.

> Also, did you read up on binary compatibility between Debian and
> Ubuntu?
>
Not yet, sent the reply waaay too early :)

> --
> martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
>
> "if english was good enough for jesus christ,
>  it's good enough for us."
>                               -- miriam ferguson, governor of texas
>
> spamtraps: madduck.bogus at madduck.net
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEAREDAAYFAksSwxcACgkQIgvIgzMMSnVPLwCZAfqTlvcHCR7OE2jrB4gwrBUy
> WVgAoIEbpMMz9zPvOPO7FjXG1Lf5r4Su
> =aEv7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>