[H-GEN] The Future of Packaging

[David Findlay]

[ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and     ]
[ Unix-related topics. Posts from non-subscribed addresses will vanish. ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Are you advocating that we standardise on a package format, or
> proposing a new one? If a new one, what would be different to RPM
> or .deb?

A new one that would have the best features of both existing formats. It would 
also be able to be signed using GPG. And it would be able to handle multiple 
archs, etc.

> > Packages should be able to have multiple architectures in the one file,
> > for instance data would be marked as noarch in the package, and libraries
> > and executable binaries could be included in the one package for i386,
> > i586, and ppc.
>
> I agree that this would be useful -- but you would probably only want to
> do it for a 'family' of packages (say all of x86, or 32-bit and 64-bit
> SPARC) or the code bloat would be tremendous.

Yep. However if the executable code was very small(like 40kb) you would be 
able to put as many as you want in there.

> I think the Linux Standards Base is doing work in this area. You might
> like to trawl around the net and see if you can contribute to their work.

I sort of envision such a scheme being a part of the LSB. As far as I can see 
no work has been done by them in this direction yet. Thanks,

David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9LlObZOfFgbBAbXARAtMiAJ9jwR78DFVTvfH0Ro3Ef2BccfsLxQCgorhh
wgP9scbu3ngYeUohSlLDFxw=
=YqRr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
* This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
* Postings to this list are only accepted from subscribed addresses of
* lists 'general' or 'general-post'.  See http://www.humbug.org.au/