>>>> You just need to install the "rpm" commmand, in the same manner
>>>> that you need to install "tar" and "gunzip" to deal with .tar.gz
>>>> archives.
>>> I am not prepared to do that. I will not fill up my system with
>>> little used junk. This is my last word on the subject, rest
>>> assured that I will never use RPM. Ever.
>> Your choice, just don't blame everyone else for your stupidity.
> Stupidity? Hardly.
Really ???
> RPM is a technically inferior package format, and one that I
> refuse to support.
As it happens, I don't believe .rpm is inferior to .tar.gz at all, but
as that has no relevance to Alex's stupidity, I'll say no more on that
subject.
> I myself am a debian user, and I do not expect anything central
> to the Linux OS to be distributed in the debian package format.
I presume there should be an "only" after "to be" in that sentence, in
which case I am in full agreement with it, both regarding debian and
redhat package formats, and regarding any other package formats that
may exist.
If you intended that "only" to be omitted, then I can't agree with you
as I see nothing wrong in the distribution of ANY software in either
.deb or .rpm provided that's not the only format it's distributed in.
> In fact, I prefer it not be distributed in any format other than a
> tar'd, gzip'd file.
As stated above, I can't agree with your exclusivity requirement...
> To expect people to keep up with a silly package format is
> absurd. I would hope you would see that.
I do, and have never stated otherwise.
> There is nothing in a RPM that can't be done with a little
> scripting, and if you want things automated, then feel free to
> do just that.
Also irrelevant...
> However, if you decide you want RPMs, you make damn well sure to
> include slackware packages, debian packages, and whatever the
> fuck else all the myriad of distributions use, because favoring
> one distribution over another is just going to screw us all in
> the long run.
Vulgarity isn't required, and I've never claimed anything other than
the above anyway, so please don't claim otherwise...
There's nothing in your comments that refutes what I said, so I see no
reason to change my stance. I would presume you have misunderstood it
from your comments, so I will repeat it here:
Q> In my honest opinion, it is pure stupidity to insist on flaming
Q> people left, right and centre (in the way that Alex did) simply
Q> because one refuses to search the Internet for a version of the
Q> software one is after that's packaged in a form one can use, as
Q> Alex made extremely clear was his stance.
I still believe that to be the case, so I stand by my claim. Indeed, I
will extend it, and additionally state the following:
Q> In my honest opinion, it is pure stupidity to refuse to search
Q> the Internet for a version of the software one is after that's
Q> packaged in a form one can use.
OK, if there's no version thereof packaged in a form one can use, one
would then have reason to feel peeved, but such clearly wasn't the
case with what Alex was after, as would have been painfully obvious
from even a cursory glance at http://ftpsearch.ntnu.no for starters.
Best wishes from Riley.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux |
| development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, |
| in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone |
| else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
* ftp://ftp.MemAlpha.cx/pub/rhw/Linux
* http://www.MemAlpha.cx/kernel.versions.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/