undefined | Better HN

0 pointslaumars14y ago0 comments

Well yeah, that's how Debian gets around the issue. However Arch doesn't have an RPM converter in it's standard set up (or if there is, I'm unaware of it).

Personally I massively prefer Arch's package manager to anything I've seen on any RPM-based distro and it seems pretty pointless in having an "alien"-like RPM converter for Arch given how exhaustive Pacman + AUR is. However the point remains that Arch would fail LSB due to this.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

pbhjpbhj14y ago· 2 in thread

>Arch doesn't have an RPM converter

Doesn't it need to just run rpm binary itself - http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=16857 kinda suggests that's more than feasible.

laumarsOP14y ago

But again, that's in not in the official repositories (just AUR), let alone part of the base system.

It's great that it's available in AUR, but it wouldn't be enough to pass LSB - which is the /entire/ point of this tangent.

pbhjpbhj14y ago

Well you said that Arch would fail LSB because it didn't have a converter, which seems strange if - as my link appears to show - it is capable of using RPM natively. That is why do they need to convert .rpm packages if they can run RPM and install them direct? Not that I'm saying there wouldn't be any work to do but the fact that people are already using .rpm via RPM (the binary program) would appear to show it's not a huge obstacle.

http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB...

To me says that the distro can use any package format it likes ("The implementation itself may use a different packaging format for its own packages") as long as it can handle .rpm packages ("Implementations shall provide a mechanism for installing applications in this [RPM] packaging format"). So if Arch shipped RPM it would appear [superficially] to meet the requirements.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse