On Sat, Jul 25, 1998 at 11:02:32AM +0100, John Lines wrote: > > Now my next crushing blow: rpm is not up to the task of LSB. However, dpkg > > isn't either. dpkg could be extended easily to handle the changes and the > > =2Edeb files are able to expand to meet the changes without ANY changes to > > structure. But then, so could a standard gnu cpio next version of .rpm > > file. > > > > If LSB gets a package format, dammit it better be a good one. > > I am not convinced that packaging software is sufficiently well understood > yet to be properly standardised anyway. To be truly useful a package format > needs to specify not just dependencies on other packages and where software > is to be installed, but things like how daemons should be initialised, > menu items added etc. You mean /etc/init.d/* and update-menus? Granted I think the init.d stuff should NOT be written to /etc/init.d/ directly but use something like update-initd and something similar to make the runlevel symlinks. It doesn't matter where a dist puts things if all it doesn't put them anywhere directly. > Having said that I think that it would be great to identify which bits are > well defined, but the format should be designed in the knowledge that new > things (standard icon for the package ? etc) may be added later. You are aware of how Debian organizes its packages? Why you'd want an icon in the package I don't know, but there's room for one.
Attachment:
pgpqhNl_pZHWd.pgp
Description: PGP signature