Encouraging the use of multiple packaging systems on one systems, and the resulting problems (was: re: /usr/local)

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 10/21/05, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
> To me, this makes at least 3/4's of packaging.
> I guess you want to re-read the FHS
> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html
>
> and the GNU-standards
> http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html

I interpreted Hearn's claim to be that rpm packages as implemented by
Fedora as a way to distribute and install software are inherently
"non-standard" and I'm looking for anything that would support such a
claim.

yes... where crap goes on the system is covered by the FHS... but i
dont see how rpms as a package blob are in conflict with that
inherently.

yes... the GNU-standards  cover a wide range of how applications
should actually be written..but i don't see how rpms as a package blob
are in conflict with that inherently.

Is there a conflict with how rpms operate with either of these
standards, that would support the claim that Fedora packages are
"non-standard method" ?

Again... the context is this particular quote:
On 10/21/05, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:59:38 +1000, Mike MacCana wrote
>> Why should Fedora and Red Hat encourage installing software in a
>> non-standard method?
>
>Because:
>
>a) Fedora RPMs are not a standard method. They're proprietary to Fedora
> and a particular Fedora release at that

-jef