RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <rpm-users>

Re: Is rpm5 going to attempt to end the fight between package formats.

From: Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com>
Date: Mon 18 Jun 2007 - 03:09:42 CEST
Message-Id: <BB874624-A9B7-4715-A45F-C72013A81995@mac.com>

On Jun 16, 2007, at 11:53 PM, Peter Dolding wrote:

> Debian users are using to debconf configuration by package name.
> This turns out to be a good feature for new users they learn the
> package manager and they can configure the system.
> rpmconf tool with entries in rpm to point to configuration would be
> good.  Expanded would be better.
> Debian required the configure tool to be in the package.  A minor
> weakness.  As well as limiting to one configuration tool per package.
> Now if a package could contain information what its configuration
> tools and the package that contains it.  Would be handy.   Even
> possible a list of tools for user to choose from and set a default
> preference.
> Also the reverse a configuration tool able link itself to packages if
> its installed.

There are fundamental design differences between rpm and apt.
Neither is better, just different.

FWIW, rpm can likely supply configuration dialogue templates
in packaging for use by a configuration tool. Its just that in an
rpm world, unattended batch mode installs are far more important
than the necessary configuration dialogues. But nothing whatsoever
prevents rpm from supplying configuration templates in metadata
for use by other tools after install. In fact, the templates could  
be created without any change to rpm whatsoever, just add a
configuration template on a conventional path.

> Rpm was not really build to deal with source building.   People who
> want to build there own OS from the ground up with there own options.
> Fixing this problem is most likely too complex.

If you mean that rpm has to exist before it can be used for buidling,
then I agree that rpm can be the initial impediment to bootstrapping
an operating system from the ground up.

Personally, I don't think either rpm or deb are very good at building
software. Nor should they be, producing packages is rather different  
than building
from sources.

> Setting up a package with the best of deb and rpm would allow one
> package format to disappear.  Better than deb would be better too.

Ever hear of XAR? ;-)

> I personally hope rpm 5 will try to pull the distributions together.
> RPM might be LSB standard but some of the fastest growing
> distributions are deb.  Main reason is the package manager gets to be
> the jack of all trades installing packages and configuring them.
> Reducing the numbers to tools users has to learn and making finding
> configuration tools that work simpler.
> The configuration tool option of deb allows configure on install.
> Many closed source developers on windows would be use to this feature.
> Its very much I want my buyer to click on something get Asked
> questions configured and up.
> Silent install options.  Last time I looked at rpm it installed but
> did not configure other than defaults.  rpm -i package.rpm package.sil
>  Would be a idea. sil being a simple archive containing the changed
> files and script for special alterations.  Of course package would
> have to support creating this.
> Hopefully these are some ideas for the road map.

Definitely useful ideas. Thank you!

73 de Jeff
Received on Mon Jun 18 03:09:48 2007
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.