developer talk, or what?
Funny to see an editorial about this but no
mail on rpm-list -- which is supposed to be about this kind of things.
This isn't meant as a flame, though. The issues
brough up here are certainly very valid. I'm not
sure they are RPM's problem, though. IMHO, a convention
on package contents would be just as good, without
any changes to the package format. For example,
many libraries picked up the convention to include
a "libraryname-config" tool, that prints out all
flags needed to use the library. Similarly, all
packages could include a "packagename-setup" tool
that can be called *after* installation
Why not put it in the package format? Because RPM
was meant for unattended installation and thats a
feature worth keeping.