Linux standards

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

I think this could be dealt with in a number of ways:
1. a standards compliant distro installs things in specific places. 
	This appraoch is limited, because it's lack of flexibilty,. What goes into 
/use/local vs. /opt vs. /usr/bin.
2. The distro provides a mapping file. The package manager would consult 
the mapping file, which could be an installation override of the above 
scheme. 
Other schemes could be used.
The package manager would also need (as most do today) check dependencies 
and also previously installed components. This is where standard naming 
conventions come into play. You also have issues such as when installing a 
new version, what to do with the old version. Historically, SuSE by default 
backs up the old one. 

But, the most serious issue is not in the implementation, but the politics. 
The Debian people, for instance have been very adamant to accept RPM in 
place of DEB. Deccies like setld, HP people like swinstall. Lots of very 
sticky issues. 

Then you have companies like Installshield that have their own procedures. 
On 20 Jun 2002 at 12:20, David Kramer wrote:
> There's a problem with a universal packaging system that works across 
> distros, and it was touched on at the meeting last night: file locations 
> and formats.  Different distros put very critical things in different 
> places.  A universal package manager would have to deal with that.
>
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Associate Director
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9