On Sun, Jul 26, 1998 at 10:35:04AM +0100, John Lines wrote: > > 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. The suggestion of making use of the menus found in gnome-panel or similar to them enough that either we or they could adapt to it is a Good Idea. Less wheel-reinvention that way. > > > 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. Then we must do a good job of making sure that the standard is a good one and it'll have to be change-able much as RFCs define protocols and revisions.
Attachment:
pgpyuhc_dJWms.pgp
Description: PGP signature