Re: some comments on the 0.9 spec
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:36:45PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> >> Packages must depend on a dependency "lsb". They may not depend on other
> >> system-provided dependencies. If a package includes "Provides" it must
> >> only provide a virtual package name which is registered to that
> >> application.
> >What this implies:
> >- if a package requires any 'reasonably standard' component of a distribution
> > but one that isn't specifically stated in the LSB, that means that the
> > package must include/statically link all these components.
> >- in fact, now that I think about it, if you can't require the particular
> > libc you were compiled against, does that mean that all LSB packages must
> > be linked statically?
>
> Yes - or they provide the dynamically-linked libraries in their own
> /opt/private/lib directory or wherever.
This is not so strange as it looks.
When I was working for a big logistic Company they suffered from
the Windows DLL syndrome. To stop it, they demanded that their
application writers supplied all DLL's the application needed,
in the directory, where the application was installed.
As long, as we do not have unified packaging and unified naming (LANANA)
there is no other way to go IMHO.
--
______ ___
/ ___/__/ / Caldera (Deutschland) GmbH
/ /_/ _ / /__ Naegelsbachstr. 49c, 91052 Erlangen, Germany
/_____/_/ /____/ software developer / lsb project
==== /____/ ===== Dipl. Inf. Johannes Poehlmann, mail: jhp@caldera.de
Caldera OpenLinux phone: ++49 9131 7192 335, fax: ++49 9131 7192 399
Reply to: