On 10/21/05, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
To me, this makes at least 3/4's of packaging.
I guess you want to re-read the FHS
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html
and the GNU-standards
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html
I interpreted Hearn's claim to be that rpm packages as implemented by
Fedora as a way to distribute and install software are inherently
"non-standard" and I'm looking for anything that would support such a
claim.
yes... where crap goes on the system is covered by the FHS... but i
dont see how rpms as a package blob are in conflict with that
inherently.
yes... the GNU-standards cover a wide range of how applications
should actually be written..but i don't see how rpms as a package blob
are in conflict with that inherently.
Is there a conflict with how rpms operate with either of these
standards, that would support the claim that Fedora packages are
"non-standard method" ?
Again... the context is this particular quote:
On 10/21/05, Mike Hearn <mike(a)plan99.net> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:59:38 +1000, Mike MacCana wrote
> Why should Fedora and Red Hat encourage installing software in a
> non-standard method?
Because:
a) Fedora RPMs are not a standard method. They're proprietary to Fedora
and a particular Fedora release at that
-jef