DebForMeeGo
(→Why keep deb) |
(→Why keep deb) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
** packages contain lots of related fixes | ** packages contain lots of related fixes | ||
* not to throw away experience gained with maemo which is reflected in the packaging | * not to throw away experience gained with maemo which is reflected in the packaging | ||
| - | * | + | * deb package can contain license information into the XBS-License field of the control file. |
| - | * | + | * will be the first packaging system to allow multiarch. |
| + | * seems to be already tested in multi-arch (even optimized versions per arch using multiple architectures), while RPM seems to be immature in that area (RPM expert's comment needed) | ||
== Why switch to rpm == | == Why switch to rpm == | ||
Revision as of 18:43, 16 February 2010
This page collects all arguments for and against keeping the *.deb package format in MeeGo.
Contents |
Scope
the aim is at least to keep the *.deb package format in the MeeGo distributions aiming at Nokia Phones/ Handhelds. Although using the .deb format throughout the MeeGo project is desireable, not arguments here apply to the same extend looking at the whole project.
Why keep deb
- No porting for Maemo packages needed
- Maemo has the bigger community
- community infrastructure is based on deb - would be thrown away
- deb has wider adoption (Ubuntu, Google Chrome OS, Debian)
- allows syncing from Debian/ Ubuntu
- is used for distributions targetting end users
- packages contain lots of related fixes
- not to throw away experience gained with maemo which is reflected in the packaging
- deb package can contain license information into the XBS-License field of the control file.
- will be the first packaging system to allow multiarch.
- seems to be already tested in multi-arch (even optimized versions per arch using multiple architectures), while RPM seems to be immature in that area (RPM expert's comment needed)
Why switch to rpm
- No porting for Moblin packages needed
- Moblin build infrastructure has more capabilities already in place, such as imaging.
Alternative Solution
- Keep a Debian base system, and provide third-party applications in an LSB package formet (which is RPM inside). LSB-compliant RPM should install flawlessly, and that way the frontier between system packages (DEB) and third-party applications (RPM) is well defined.