QA process was Re: RPM submission procedure

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le ven 09/01/2004 à 23:29, Karl DeBisschop a écrit :
> On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 16:47, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:32:49 -0500, Karl DeBisschop wrote:
>  
> > Fine. Get all distributors to agree on common package naming guidelines,
> > on a common set of RPM macros, on a common set of helper tools, etc. etc.
> 
> At this point, as you seem to feel, that is probably not feasible.

The FHS success proves it can be done. But it needs a real commitment
from the distributions themselves. And you won't get it unless a large
body of packages are done in a distro-independent way (distributions bow
to external trends, they rarely create them).

This means a large self-consistent repository that uses file
dependencies for stuff that differ in distributions, work around
distribution differences by repackaging essential facilities for
distributions that lack them, and enforce uniform policy by using a
single srpm for all distros (eventually rebuild for each distribution).

Tools like apt/yum and the common repository format will probably
produce something like this sooner or later. With other distribution
packages a yum/apt entry away there will be increased pressure for
distro interoperability - just like the free availability of very
different (historically) pieces of software under Linux created common
file layout standards.

The Rh/Mdk drift would certainly have been smaller had both
distributions used a common network update tool at the time.

Cheers,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e.
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20040111/7e93eb1b/attachment.sig>