DebForMeeGo

(Why switch to rpm: : Add detail about license field in RPMs)
(Why switch to rpm: rpmlint == lintian)
Line 25: Line 25:
* Moblin build infrastructure has more capabilities already in place, such as imaging.
* Moblin build infrastructure has more capabilities already in place, such as imaging.
* RPMs can contain license information too
* RPMs can contain license information too
 +
* rpmlint can be used to check for a package quality (like lintian)
== Alternative Solution ==
== 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.
* 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.
* Add the imaging feature to the Deb package.
* Add the imaging feature to the Deb package.

Revision as of 16:50, 18 February 2010

This page collects all arguments for and against keeping the *.deb package format in MeeGo.

If you want to support this Idea you can vote at Brainstorm.

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)
  • tools for verifying (e.g. lintian) available

Why switch to rpm

  • No porting for Moblin packages needed
  • Moblin build infrastructure has more capabilities already in place, such as imaging.
  • RPMs can contain license information too
  • rpmlint can be used to check for a package quality (like lintian)

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.
  • Add the imaging feature to the Deb package.