On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 12:26:35PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > I think it makes more sense for the LSB to define an intersection of > required features, and use only that for their stuff. Then other people can > easily implement this minimal interface or convert to/from it. > > The LSB doesn't need the full power of a complex packaging system, and it is > unlikely they would get it right without really using it. i don't think it doesn't really makes any sense for them to comment on packaging systems anyway. the only reason i can see (and has been mentioned) for it is proprietary developers. i personally think proprietary stuff should just go in /opt. proprietary devs almost invariably horribly ignore the FHS or anything resembling *nix filesystem standards anyway.. so i say hell with it tell them to put all thier junk in /opt/prog and perhaps require a wrapper script suitable for installation in /usr/local/bin that properly runs the software. if they did this packaging systems don't even enter into it, the developer just ships a tar.gz to be unpacked in /opt, simple. or better yet, don't use non-free software ;-) IMNSHO, it should be up to the distribution makers to do packaging, not upstream as its usually not thier specialty and thus they often end up making a crappy package. standard or not i think this will always be the case. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpG67zh92kFL.pgp
Description: PGP signature