Moving on

Simon Perreault nomis80 at
Sat Jun 16 09:35:24 PDT 2001

On Saturday 16 June 2001 12:27, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> We can still integrate rpm. But if you choose to use a debian style with
> deb's and dpkg, rpm will not do you much good. With XML you don't tell
> how to do something you only tell what to do. Let the work horses figure
> out what needs to be done. If you define in xml profile to use an rpm
> database to keep track of your packages, it can do that. But if you need
> non-rpm, it can do that too. There's a big difference between using rpm
> spec files (they define exactly how to do it, and then you are stuck
> wtih that one implementation) and xml (which tells what to do and lets
> you implement how to get the job done). This will greatly help
> protability. But I believe this is already clear, along with the RPC
> stuff.

Totally agreed! (Too bad you didn't read my replied to the personnal message 
you sent me earlier ;) I like the idea a lot.

> Right now I see tho things showing up on this list:
> 1) people who see the flexibility of xml and think it's a good idea to
> use it
> 2) people who see the flexibility of xml but do not think that it's
> appropriate for ALFS to be that flexible, portable, expandable, and so
> on

I think I was in
3) people who see the flexibility of xml but do not think that this 
flexibility could even be used

The redefinition of the task has made xml's flexibility usable.

> I hope the difference between using rpm and xml is clear now?

Not clearer than before, but the definition of the task is clearer, and shows 
how xml would be better suited. Thanks for patiently answering my questions, 
you're always the man, Gerard!

Simon Perreault -- Public key:
Unsubscribe: send email to alfs-discuss-request at
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list