Re: LSB

["Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <shalehperry@home.com>]

> 
> No way that rpm replaces dpkg; dpkg is doing a far better job in defining
> dependencies, which is IMHO the first and most important job of a package
> management system. Plus, that would require us to recompile every program
> in the archive, which is a lot of work.
> 

worry not, LSB only requires that we allow rpms to be installed, not replace
any existing packages or package managers.

Debian (or slack, or stampede, or whatever) is not being told to ditch their
legacy support.  The package specification is 100% for the benefit of ISV's so
end users can download "Joe Bobs cool app" that Joe Bob only releases as rpms. 
Think people like Real or Star Office.  Yes it would be better if tarballs were
release too, but rpm is pretty much the de facto standard for the releasing of
binary only packages.