Hi Graham,
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 1:23 PM Graham Leggett <minfrin(a)sharp.fm> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2019, at 12:03, Dridi Boukelmoune <dridi.boukelmoune(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings packagers,
>
> I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks
> everything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should
> have from day one.
DPKG solved the packaging problem, but was particularly inelegant doing so, primary
because the goal at the time was to move from nothing to something. RPM was able to learn
from the first attempt, and is far simpler and more robust.
I need to apologize again for my bad joke.
I don't really like the DPKG/apt ecosystem, and wasn't implying that
Fedora as a distribution should switch to DPKG (RPM is one of the
reasons I'm using Fedora). Rather that we have an "apt" package that
currently isn't upstream "apt" but dead upstream "apt-rpm"
instead.
> A bit of background here: I build both RPMs and DEBs for $DAYJOB
and
> until recently my workflow was quite painful because I needed extra steps
> between git checkout and git push that involves a VM, because what we
> ship as apt is in reality apt-rpm.
If I’m understanding you correctly are you trying to being Debian packages on a Fedora
system?
Yes, thanks to $EMPLOYER letting me use Fedora for $DAYJOB, I can use
my favorite OS both personally and for work. And I do Debian packaging
for my $DAYJOB.
I’m not seeing how a need like this justifies reengineering an entire
software ecosystem.
Indeed, I only wish to replace one package by another, and add a
couple more to improve the DPKG experience on Fedora. The fact that I
don't need to switch systems to target either Debian/Ubuntu or
RHEL/CentOS is a great bonus.
I'm trying to submit RPMs that I have been using locally to build Debs
on Fedora \o/
Dridi