Re: Re: [RFC] Binary pecl packages

--- Mirco 'meebey' Bauer <pear-dev@meebey.net> wrote: > the rpm database is completly seperate from the apt database, which > means it probably will break the system because of conflicting deps of > the debs and rpm packages... > > what we usualy do on debian is, when we have only a rpm and we don't > want to compile by hand[tm], we convert the rpm to a deb, its kinda > "experimentel" but it often works. the tool for that is called alien. > This allows to install the converted packages with using the apt > database to have a consistant debian system. A better option, if multiple packaging solutions will be pursued, would be that the people using the appropriate packages add an option akin to the 'makerpm' that PEAR now has. That one just creates the spec file that can be used to create the final RPM. Similar thing can be done for Debian or wathever. IIRC, when the Polish Linux guys were inquiring/proposing to distribute PEAR RPMs (which if memory serves was the origin of the 'makerpm', someone mentioned Debian, but apparently nobody step up to the plate and did the coding needed. Bottomline, most discussions on what formats to support specifically (apart from a source tarball), boils down to: If you want FOO to be supported, write the code to support FOO. I usually use source code, as I have to deal w/ Linux boxes as well as a mish-mash of other Unices (Solaris, Irix, etc.). But I understand that some people get used to use a packaging system. Just my 0.02 > > Mirco > > On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 02:04, Gareth Ardron wrote: > > On Thursday 19 June 2003 12:39 am, Ken Tossell wrote: > > > > > > > > Windows is the primary platform we need binaries for. > > > And many major Linux distributions do not support RPM... > > > > But would that matter? > > > > Slackware users are used to compiling everything by hand - having only > rpm's > > avaliable is pretty common to them, so they won't care provided the source > is > > to hand > > > > Debian users..well, somebody'll package it anyway within no time, and if > they > > don't then again, we're all used to having only .rpm's avaliable and > building > > from source. > > > > I honestly can't remember about suse and rpms, so I'm not going to go > there. > > > > But deb and slack are the 2 really major distros which don't support rpms. > > Infact, a quick apt-cache search rpm seems to suggest > > there's a version > of > > rpm for debian as well. > > > > Can't honestly think of any other major distro that doesn't support it. > > > > -- > > Gareth Ardron > > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > ===== -- Jesus M. Castagnetto (jcastagnetto@yahoo.com) Research: http://metallo.scripps.edu/ Personal: http://www.castagnetto.org/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com