On 10/21/05, Mike Hearn <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > a) Fedora RPMs are not a standard method. They're proprietary to Fedora > and a particular Fedora release at that Can you point out to me a specific written packaging standard..for linux...that has some measure of wide concensous support? I found this: http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/swinstall.html If we can't hold up the LSB, which prefers rpms, then exactly what standard are you trying to apply? Now, whether or not you believe the LSB currently enjoys or should enjoy wide adoption is an open question, outside the scope of this thread. My point is, the LSB stuff is a high profile "standards" attempt in this community and even it prefers rpms to a degree, so I'm not sure how you can claim Fedora is doing something non-standard in the scope of the larger community. Please... lets avoid over the top generalistic language. I'm trying to give your concerns the benefit of the doubt but when you make this sort of statement the strongest argument in your arsenal it becomes difficult to continue to be open to what you are saying with regard to how to appropriately support alternative installation mechanisms. -jef"do your own thing is the de-facto standard"spaleta -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
