OpenPKG 1.0 Released

Ralf S. Engelschall writes: "I'm proundly announcing today the release of OpenPKG 1.0, the world of cross-platform RPM-based Unix software packaging. A flexible and powerful software packaging facility, OpenPKG eases installation and administration of Unix software across several platforms. It primarily targets the Unix platforms FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris, but is portable across mostly all modern Unix flavors. OpenPKG was created in November 2000 and after over one year of development it is already a mature technology in production use. It is available as Open Source and is further maintained by both my development team at Cable & Wireless Germany and our contributors. For more details visit openpkg.org and ftp.openpkg.org."

Microsoft is moving to MSI

[yerricde]

The one true package format: setup.exe

I assume you refer to the standard name of a Windows installer program. Those may become obsolete, as Microsoft and other vendors shift to .msi packages that use the Windows Installer [a-softtech.com].

Uses separate RPM repository, no NLS

[bojolais]

I notice that an openpkg-installed package populates their own RPM database, rather than using one that may already be on the system. While this may be due to the fact that they need to store additional information that a default RPM4 database doesn't allow for, it would seem to be a horrible inconvenience to maintain two separate RPM databases... even if one allowed you more cross-platform control.

Also, I thought it interesting that they favor English as the only language used on Unix machines, and chose not to include NLS support in OpenPKG. And they're not even Americans!

Re:Time loss

[GauteL]

This is not very relevant anymore. Almost all distributions and projects have chosen RPM, and there really isn't much point in remaking the decision.

Besides apt already exists for RPM, and works fine. Since my favourite mirror got APT-enabled I've used it almost exclusively.

I would like to start seeing *.lsb.rpm soon, guaranteed to work on all lsb-compliant distributions. As long as they are competently created they should be debianizable through alien .

Why settle on one package format?

[adlam.bor]

The FAQ says that OpenPKG decided to go with RPM over all the others for whatever reasons. What I'm wondering is, why bother limiting yourself in that way? Meaning, isn't it a trivial matter to figure out what package type a file is, and use the appropriate tool to handle it? My point is, I think that rpm, deb, and slackware's format are all mature enough that you can't really argue one over the other without getting into taste. Wouldn't the REALLY smart move be to try to come up with a tool that offers convergence? (not saying that nobody hasn't, but I am saying that I think it's an outdated idea to go with one specific format over any other)

Re:Congratulations Ralf.

[JahToasted]

What *I* want (and yes, I am coding this myself) is a system that only knows as much as necessary to get the package from its original source in the rawest form available. Then the system takes the package and builds/installs it using a user account set aside for the purpose of installing non-base software.

I had this idea myself at one time. Mostly because I think that I have a good name. I figured that windows had wizards to install things, So Linux should have a "Sourcerer". Well maybe you don't find that to be as an amusing pun as I did, but I wish you lots of luck in your project.

I recall that the guy who started KDE (what's name again?) once mentioned working on something like this.

I would be interested in help you out on this. I think that my best skill is in designing User Interface, but I can programme as well. If you need some help send me an email...

Can anyone summarize how this differs from RPM?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the FAQs and scanned the slides, but I didn't see how this differs from RPM. Am I just missing something?

With RPM, I have a single source RPM, and can build that to create a binary on (theoretically) any architecture (assuming my spec file, etc, take quirks into account.)

Oh, I see that OpenPKG offers a way to download a file and install it, without explicitly already having RPM on your system. Nice but I'm sure there are more perks I'm missing, otherwise this just looks like a rebranded RPM to me.

Enlighten me, please.