Re: Re: LSB bastards
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 12:03:30 -0400, Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> wrote:
>
> Debian has a decision to freely make: Are we interested in allowing
> users to install a 'lsb' package which makes their debian system lsb
> compliant.
yes but it seems RPM's are now defined by the LSB as "standard" so dpkg
will remain outside standards now. that scares me.
> If we decide not to, fine we can even remove rpm (and alien) from the
> distribution tomorrow if we decide to. Nobody's forcing us to do
> anything.
You're right, I wouldn't be discussing at all if we were forced to.
even RPM-based dists include alien, no problem for them since they don't allow
users to "dpkg -i foo.deb" like we may be going to do with RPM.
> > Providing a way to transparently install any RPM is becoming fully RPM compliant,
>
> Any rpm != any lsb package. Sigh. Do some research before flaming?
Does it matter? once a Debian system is able to install any lsb-compliant RPM package,
lesser developers will be disposed to create a dpkg package, which is only for Debian,
and dedicate efforts in RPM packaging. That, in a long term, brings Debian to become
another RPM-based distro.
> > If we do, then we'll have to adapt the whole directory structure NOT only to LSB,
> > but also to Red Hat. And that, sirs, has already a name: fascism.
>
> Godwin.
I already answered about that and tell you the same, see http://www.eff.org/pub/Net_culture/Folklore/Humor/godwins.law
to have a better idea of what Godwin's law is and keep in mind that legitimate fascism comparisons do exist.
--
Robert Millan Debian GNU user
zeratul2 wanadoo es http://getyouriso.org/
Reply to: