On 10/21/05, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
