Bug 5754 - [spec] Moblin package format
: [spec] Moblin package format
: NEW
: Moblin Compliance Tools
Moblin Compliance Specification
: unspecified
: Netbook Moblin Linux
: Undecided enhancement
: ---
:
:
:
:
 
 
Reported: 2009-08-31 08:25 PST by
Modified: 2009-09-09 07:53 PST (History)


Attachments




Description From 2009-08-31 08:25:34 PST
The current question of package format remains uncomfortable. The combination
of elements appears to indicate that packages must be provided in both rpm and
deb format in order for an application to conform.  Is this really what we
want?
------- Comment #1 From 2009-09-09 07:53:04 PST -------
There is also a question relating to the language of used in the manual moblin
tests, as referenced by bug #5087.   Specifically:

    "Packages should be created so that the package management system knows
which files are installed. Queries on the installed packages using standard
package management tools should be able to list all the installed files and
determine which package a file belongs to."

From today's bug hunt IRC chat:

(10:38:36 AM) tytso: For 5087, this looks very strange "Packages should be
created so that the package management system knows which files are installed.
Queries on the installed packages using standard package management tools
should be able to list all the installed files and determine which package a
file belongs to."
(10:39:19 AM) tytso: wouldn't this always be true?    i'm not sure what this
question in the manual tests is getting at.....
(10:39:43 AM) tytso: the only way it might not be true is if the package
contained a tarball which was then unpacked in the post-install script, or some
such.
(10:40:14 AM) mats: which some of the horrid things do (vmware is such an
example)
(10:40:57 AM) licquia: that particular requirement may be too strict, also
(10:41:22 AM) licquia: "unpack a tarball in the postinst" is clearly an abuse,
but there are sometimes good reasons to create new files in the postinst

(10:42:43 AM) tytso: is this language coming from the spec?  If so, maybe it
needs to be more plainly stated.   Packages should not unpack tarballs in
postinsts; this is highly undesirable.  If you must do this, please make sure
the uninstall script does the right thing, or some such?
(10:42:57 AM) mats: yes, it's from the spec
(10:43:33 AM) mats: I'm more than happy to take proposals for alternate
wording, I think Bob put this in fairly recently, but before I got it...
(10:44:20 AM) licquia: if the language were made less "requirement" and more
"recommendation"...