Re: [FLAME WARNING] Linux Standards Base and Debian
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 10:07:57PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > I agree. The LSB should contrast/compare features of both and come up
> > with a superset of both (possibly favoring ones implementation over the
> > other). Most importantly, the metadata format needs to be standardized.
> > That is the key component. If that is standard, then the binary format
> > means very little (since a simple converter can be created just like
> > alien).
>
> 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.
In fact this is what was done. RPM supports an infinite number of
installation scripts. Some of these scripts are run from triggers. No
other Package Format does this. LSB will limit the number of scripts to
match the structure of .deb files, as I understand things.
>
> 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.
The LSB will never specify a "packaging system". I will restrict itself to
only the package format including a binary component format {sorry Ben ;-}
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_- _-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-
_- _-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Reply to: