Re: package formats (was Re: RH and GNOME)
>
> 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.
>
I mean that a true common package format would imply standardisation of
all the components like update-menus.
> > 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.
>
I am aware of how Debian organises its packages, the point I was making is
that standardising a package format will freeze the format at that point and
if we adopt an LSB package format we may lose the ability to extend it in
new directions since we will then no longer be standard.
John Lines
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: