packagetastic-developers team mailing list archive

[Matt Jones <mattjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matt Jones wrote:
> I just got the project good enough to show to people. I wrote a blog
> post about it. I am asking for feedback, questions, and criticisms.
> Please provide them here or on the post:
> 
> http://www.mattjones.workhorsy.org/2009/10/05/fixing-packaging-in-linux-1/


I've been getting some good feedback from identica:
http://identi.ca/conversation/11406569 and the comments on the blog
post:
http://www.mattjones.workhorsy.org/2009/10/05/fixing-packaging-in-linux-1/#comments
 . Most has to do with confusion caused by the long definition of the
project, and the difference between phase 1 and phase 2.

I have been researching many other packaging formats/distros, such as
(Conary, RPM, Dpkg, Arch, Gobo Linux, Klik, Autopackage, et cetera). I
think many of the abstract ones (Klik, Autopackage) have suffered from a
poor description and poor marketing. For example, Klik markets itself as
a packaging system, when it is really application virtualization. People
then think it is a poor packaging system, when it should be thought of
good application virtualization.

So I've decided to simplify they scope and definition of the project.
Just for reference, here is the current definition:

"Packagetastic is a new software packaging system for Linux. It is
designed to replace traditional packaging systems, while being backwards
compatible with them. For Example, you can create a Packagetastic
package and install it, or have a Dpkg or RPM package automatically
generated from it."

Rather than saying we are trying to replace Dpkg and RPM
out-of-the-gate, we should ignore phase 2. We should focus on phase 1.
Which is creating a meta package that can generate RPM and Dpkg packages
automatically. So lets try to define it that way:

"Packagetastic is a meta packaging system for Linux. It generates RPM
and Dpkg packages from one simple file."

I think that is good enough for now. Chime in, if you want to try making
a better definition. Note that generating our own pure packagetastic
packages can still be done later.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~packagetastic-developers
Post to     : packagetastic-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~packagetastic-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkrLtVkACgkQxUw4owzLXjDjBACgilcDNGQ/c+t2hmcTnXHj8wld
vVAAoKadsrQ+Wk08nUmvHHAPObQKymok
=gMLB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----