🚀 go-pugleaf

Manfred Bartz <mbartz@werple.net.au> writes:

>david@brucehall20.anu.edu.au (David Gibson) writes:

>> Manfred Bartz (mbartz@werple.net.au) wrote:
>> : [Snip]
>> : I generally recommend against Redhat because they promote a
>> : non-standard package format (.rpm files).  I believe in keeping to
>> : established standards.  Additional features should be incorporated
>> : within those standards.  RPM format does not provide anything that
>> : could not have been encapsulated in a `.tar.gz' or `.tgz' file.
>> 
>> 	<choke> C|N>K what ?!?! Um... verification information,
>> indexed file listing, summary information, install and uninstall
>> script...
>> 
>> Yes, they _could_ put these into files in a .tar.gz, but you'd need a
>> special tool - ie. other than tar - to make use of them. ......

>You need a special tool as it is now --- the Redhat Package Manager.

>> In short .tar.gz is _not_ a package format. ..........

>OK, so if you want those extra features, RPM has got something to
>offer :-)

>It would still have been nice if they would have come up with a
>solution that is readily usable by anybody, not just people who happen
>to have RPM :-(

The main reason I'm moving away from RedHat, is that they expect you to keep
buying their upgrades on CD.
The new new rpm is not compatible with the old one from Picasso,
so anytime I see a useful rpm on the net, its bad news.
So I'm sticking with tar.gz, at least they will always be backward compitible
for free.

>-- 
>Manfred Bartz <mbartz@werple.net.au>

>  --- LINUX, live free or die ---
Corley.