3 ms·

I've authored many RPM packages, it's dead simple. Have a spec file, tar it, and run rpmbuild on it. I don't really know why this guy was freaking out. I also

I've authored many RPM packages, it's dead simple. Have a spec file, tar it, and run rpmbuild on it. I don't really know why this guy was freaking out. I also like the fact that transient dependency and repo handling is separated from the package handler itself. We have rpm to handle a single package, and we have dnf (yum) to handle trees of packages.

bmn__ 8y ago
> I don't really know why this guy was freaking out. That's clearly explained in the article. This is not about authoring from a specfile, so your comment is off. He wants to serialise a package into RPM without the traditional toolchain; it turns out to be much more difficult than the other serialisers he already has because of the rpm format's bad design decisions and accretions.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  I don't think they're bad decisions; I think he has no idea why it's that way and so is assuming that it's terrible. The RPM format was designed when computers were smaller and slower, and is extremely flexible while forcing you to declare enough that it can validate the file contents as it goes. It's over-engineered, and there are certainly things I would change, but it's not just random stupid decisions. If you can't think of any good reason why it would be written the way it is, the main options are that you're missing something or the original spec authors were stupid. Of course, sometimes they were stupid, but maybe don't immediately assume that after your very first investigation into the format.
  - paol 8y ago
    > RPM format was designed when computers were smaller and slower So was DEB. That's not a very good excuse.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    The Deb file format was designed even earlier, yet it doesn't contain a matryoshka of metadata.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
      Debian under-engineered, Redhat over-engineered. In perfect hindsight, Debian probably made better tradeoffs, but that's only with decades of hindsight.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        I don't see how Debian under-engineered. Does it not fulfill its needs? Plus, RH could have decided to make a proper v2 rather than build this lasagna of a format.
        yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
        I suppose "under" is perhaps a stronger term than I really want, since it did in fact work out. I agree that Debian, indeed, fulfilled exactly what it needed, but only what it definitely needed right then; a minimum viable product that turned out to be sufficent. RH built for everything that they could imagine ever needing, and left options to extend for anything they didn't think of in advance. Perhaps "just enough"-engineered vs over-engineered?
        icebraining 8y ago
        I disagree, RH did not in fact built it for everything; if they had, they would not need headers-inside-headers or fixed "nonsense" values. What they build is an over-engineered yet incomplete format, but also inflexible, so they had then to pile hacks upon it.

bmn__ 8y ago

> I don't really know why this guy was freaking out. That's clearly explained in the article. This is not about authoring from a specfile, so your comment is off. He wants to serialise a package into RPM without the traditional toolchain; it turns out to be much more difficult than the other serialisers he already has because of the rpm format's bad design decisions and accretions.

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
I don't think they're bad decisions; I think he has no idea why it's that way and so is assuming that it's terrible. The RPM format was designed when computers were smaller and slower, and is extremely flexible while forcing you to declare enough that it can validate the file contents as it goes. It's over-engineered, and there are certainly things I would change, but it's not just random stupid decisions. If you can't think of any good reason why it would be written the way it is, the main options are that you're missing something or the original spec authors were stupid. Of course, sometimes they were stupid, but maybe don't immediately assume that after your very first investigation into the format.
- paol 8y ago
  > RPM format was designed when computers were smaller and slower So was DEB. That's not a very good excuse.
- icebraining 8y ago
  The Deb file format was designed even earlier, yet it doesn't contain a matryoshka of metadata.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    Debian under-engineered, Redhat over-engineered. In perfect hindsight, Debian probably made better tradeoffs, but that's only with decades of hindsight.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      I don't see how Debian under-engineered. Does it not fulfill its needs? Plus, RH could have decided to make a proper v2 rather than build this lasagna of a format.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
        I suppose "under" is perhaps a stronger term than I really want, since it did in fact work out. I agree that Debian, indeed, fulfilled exactly what it needed, but only what it definitely needed right then; a minimum viable product that turned out to be sufficent. RH built for everything that they could imagine ever needing, and left options to extend for anything they didn't think of in advance. Perhaps "just enough"-engineered vs over-engineered?
        icebraining 8y ago
        I disagree, RH did not in fact built it for everything; if they had, they would not need headers-inside-headers or fixed "nonsense" values. What they build is an over-engineered yet incomplete format, but also inflexible, so they had then to pile hacks upon it.