| |||||||||||||
Not the package type but the backend database that matters.Not the package type but the backend database that matters.Posted Mar 31, 2005 11:01 UTC (Thu) by Wout (subscriber, #8750)Parent article: Autopackage 1.0
It seems to me that the problem with different package managers is not the package format (eg. rpm or deb) but the type of the backend database on the (client) system. If rpm, dpkg, ... all updated the same database when installing a package it would be possible to mix different packages on the same system.
If the maintainers of rpm, dpkg, ... would agree on a backend database format then we could all keep using our favourite type of package without having issues due to differing package types. Vendors of commercial software could then (in principle) pick one type of package and use that on any distribution.
(Log in to post comments)
Not the package type but the packages logical contents. Posted Mar 31, 2005 12:55 UTC (Thu) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] No, the problem is that the distributions don't agree on what is in a certain package. If my package depends upon a certain library, which package is it in, and where is the library installed? The answer changes for SuSE, Fedora/RedHat, Debian, etc. The backend database is a technical issue, easily solved. The package name/contents issue is a social problem, not easily solved.
|
|||||||||||||