>> 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.
> Since you called me stupid, I'd hardly think you have anything
> worthwhile to say, but I'll reiterate my points to get it
> through your thick skull (without using a blunt weapon)
I gather you didn't put me in your killfile, even though you said you
had, so you may wish to note that the sort of vulgarity you used
therein is NEVER warranted...
> RPM is a format that makes it difficult for those of us
> unwilling to download and use the rpm software to get at the
> packages - especially those that are only available in rpms.
As per my previous emails, I do NOT believe that ANYTHING should ONLY
be available in .rpm or .deb or ANY other form of packager, nor have I
ever claimed otherwise, so I have no dispute with you over that point.
> For many of us that don't use or are not interested in RPMs,
> that does lock us out of that segment - and hence, leaves us
> with the distinct impression that those authors would have us go
> to all that twaddle to get at the sources.
Also as per my previous posts on the subject, I see NO reason to
package SOURCES in anything other than tarballs. However, as per my
previous posts on the subject, I see NOTHING WRONG in using packaging
systems such as .rpm or .deb for BINARY distribution of software,
PROVIDING it is also available in tarballs.
> Tarballs (*.tar.gz files)...
I use .tar.bz2 files myself, and some prefer .tar.Z files for various
reasons, so I refuse to believe your claim that only .tar.gz files can
be counted as tarballs...
> ...are the true tried and tested method for distributing
> _SOURCE_ code.
Of course...
> I myself distribute my source code in tarballs, and in nothing
> else. I leave it up to the distributors (i.e RedHat, Debian) to
> repackage them for their distributions.
That's the best way.
> I think I shall put in a provision in my sources in future to
> force people to give an URL pointing to my tarballs for those
> who wants it.
I'd second you on that.
> Another reason for myself wanting the sources is to protect
> myself from knobheads putting out "modified" binaries that
> leaves my systems with security problems - see previous articles
> in this mailing list for the Utils-linux 2.9i trojan saga.
I have to admit that I hadn't heard of that, but then, I only get
binary RPM's from sites I trust...
> Authors willing to write code had better be prepared to
> distribute tarballs for those of us not "enlightened" with RPMs.
> Now do you understand?!
I understand your comments above, and as per my previous posts, and my
comments above, I'm in full agreement with most of them...
> "Bullshit. It's a cesspool, and has been for a long time. RMS
> chucked another turd in our midst and his sheep drop their daks
> and follow suit."
8-)
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/