🚀 go-pugleaf

David Gibson wrote:
> 
> 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. I don't see
> how this is significantly different from rpm. If you do use tar, those
> files are just going to get dumped somewhere, which if you're not
> using the same conventions about such things as this "package format"
> is using is _bad_. At least with an rpm, this extra crud is only going
> to be extracted if its used. Otherwise you can use rpm2cpio which
> extracts the (standard) cpio archive around which RPM files are based.
> 
> In short .tar.gz is _not_ a package format. An archive format maybe,
> but it simply does not provide the facilities a good package manager
> can. Adding packaging information to a .tar.gz is essentially writing a
> non-standard extension to tar. At least with rpm you _know_ it's not
> just a plain archive. ie. rpm and tar address different problems. Trying
> extend tar is a worse abuse of standards than writing a new file format.
> 

Just in case you don't know but slakware does come with a package
utilitiy.
And it uses .tgz files as packages and allows installing and
uninstalling of
packages. It also checks when uninstalling that it doesn't remove a file
needed by another package.