On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 07:40:34AM -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2007 4:24 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> wrote:
> > The target for dpkg are not casual users, and casual users won't use it
> > anyway.
>
> And when someone wants to put a dpkg-enabled tool in the distro that
> does target casual users?

What kind of tool are you thinking of? If we have tools that use dpkg
then there is a lack of proper integration. The solution is not to have
a non functional dpkg, but properly integrated packages.

> It's a slippery slope. We avoid
> being on that slope by not having a fully functional dpkg on the system at all.

It is better if the dpkg we give is upstream dpkg, such that user can
use it in any way they want.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Dec 7, 2007 11:40 AM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2007 4:24 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> wrote:
> > The target for dpkg are not casual users, and casual users won't use it
> > anyway.
>
> And when someone wants to put a dpkg-enabled tool in the distro that
> does target casual users? It's a slippery slope. We avoid
> being on that slope by not having a fully functional dpkg on the system at all.

Do you want to hassle most people that have a legitimate use just to
protect everyone else? My level of tolerance is a one time warning,
and then for all security features to *get out of the way*.

Granted, we probably don't need apt-dpkg in Fedora, and synaptic is a
very bad idea in my book, (although I'm sure someone else would
disagree,) but it seems crazy to have to bend over backwards because
there are stupid people around.

-Yaakov

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Not all people accidentally using dpkg would be stupid. Perhaps they are used to a Debian based system, yadda yadda yadda... Anyways, upstream could theoretically be used if a patch was submitted to detect platforms to enable and disable functionality. For instance, on Debian, a dpkg binary would function as the full package manager, with apt as repo manager. On a Fedora machine, dpkg's platform checking would figure out it is fedora and automatically initialize alien functionality, or just fail with an error stating that if you want to use debian packages on this platform, use alien to convert it to the native package format of the platform.


On Dec 8, 2007 8:24 PM, Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 7, 2007 11:40 AM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2007 4:24 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr
> wrote:
> > The target for dpkg are not casual users, and casual users won't use it
> > anyway.
>
> And when someone wants to put a dpkg-enabled tool in the distro that
> does target casual users? *It's a slippery slope. We avoid

> being on that slope by not having a fully functional dpkg on the system at all.

Do you want to hassle most people that have a legitimate use just to
protect everyone else? *My level of tolerance is a one time warning,

and then for all security features to *get out of the way*.

Granted, we probably don't need apt-dpkg in Fedora, and synaptic is a
very bad idea in my book, (although I'm sure someone else would
disagree,) but it seems crazy to have to bend over backwards because

there are stupid people around.

-Yaakov

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com

https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:55:14PM -0600, King InuYasha wrote:
> Not all people accidentally using dpkg would be stupid. Perhaps they are
> used to a Debian based system, yadda yadda yadda...

Being used to something isn't an excuse for doing something wrong that
could have been avoided by understanding what one is doing (and nobody
is stupid in my opinion, but some actions are stupid).

> Anyways, upstream could
> theoretically be used if a patch was submitted to detect platforms to enable
> and disable functionality.

That could be interesting, indeed. Though detecting the platform is
certainly not the way to go. What would be relevant would be to detect a
rpm database in the installation root. But then you should want to
modify autoconf/automake such that a generated makefile doesn't install
in rpm managed directories when a rpm database is detected (or we are in
fedora).

> For instance, on Debian, a dpkg binary would
> function as the full package manager, with apt as repo manager. On a Fedora

apt is completely different from dpkg (and the apt in fedora knows .rpm,
but not .deb). In fedora the repo manager may be smart, yum, apt and
certainly other that I don't know (not to mention that urpmi would
certainly work fine).

> machine, dpkg's platform checking would figure out it is fedora and
> automatically initialize alien functionality, or just fail with an error
> stating that if you want to use debian packages on this platform, use alien
> to convert it to the native package format of the platform.

My guess is that alien doesn't need dpkg at all, but needs dpkg-deb
(which even seems to be a different binary). Still not a reason to
cripple dpkg.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list