On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 12:04:17PM +0100, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> > > > mv lsb-apache-1.3.22-1.i386.rpm lsb-apache_1.3.22-1_i386.lsb # ?
> > > Bad idea. lsb-apache_1.3.22-1_i386.lsb will break a lot of software
> > > for maintaining RPM packages.
> > Does that really matter? These are LSB packages that just happen to share
> > the RPM format, aren't they?
> Yes, and I think a user should be able to install them with the default
> tools of the distribution.
Ah, so "dpkg -i lsb-apache-1.3.22-1.i386.rpm" is expected to work?
Or, for that matter, is "mv foo.rpm foo.lsb; rpm -i foo.lsb" meant to fail?
If you'd rather, have the rename be done after lsbcheck confirms that
the package really is LSB compliant, ie, after you've finished hacking on
it.
But do rename it.
Cheers,
aj
(or admit that this is the "RPM Standard Base", and that Slackware and
Debian and kin just aren't cool enough to play)
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
The daffodils are coming. Are you?
linux.conf.au, February 2002, Brisbane, Australia
--- http://www.linux.org.au/conf
Attachment:
pgp5mc1m5GOyZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature