LSB compatible Samba ?

Gerald Carter gcarter at
Tue Jul 3 13:06:02 GMT 2001

On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Michael Sweet wrote:

> OK, here's one opinion - both RPM and dpkg are flawed because they don't
> easily allow a non-source build of the package (e.g. here are the files,
> package them), and neither allow you to map files in a build directory
> to the installation directories - you have to do it all in makefiles
> which can be difficult if you want portability.
> In addition, dpkg required root permissions to build a package at all
> because you can't specify the file permissions in the package support
> files.  RPM, at least, can do this as long as you make the RPM build
> directories writable for your developers.

Good points.  Thanks.

> > So again I ask, if a packaging system installs, removes,
> > and detects dependencies, what more do you need?  The FTP/HTTP
> Upgrades?  Configuration file support.  Init script support.
> A flexible build interface.  *Software patch* support.

More good points.

> It may be fluff to you, but a lot of vendors (Microsoft included) are
> providing software updates via the Internet.  It would make sense to
> support that in the package management tools rather than relying on a
> hundred different add-ons that stop working when the underlying
> package management programs are changed...

My point here was not that these update methods are not good or
needed.  It was just that given a sufficiently robust packaging
system, update mechanisms such as these can be built on top
of the packaging tool and not as a fundamental part or it.
That's all.


cheers, jerry
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------     VA Linux Systems      gcarter at          SAMBA Team             jerry at                           jerry at
 --"I never saved anything for the swim back." Ethan Hawk in Gattaca--

More information about the samba-technical mailing list