On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 11:31:14AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> But... what kind of fascists are these LSB people?
[..]
Did you consider that the dpkg/apt coders were part of the decision to use
rpm for LSB? That's right, I believe that was discussed at least once
right on this list. Why? Well, of all the dists out there, 2/3 of them
use rpm natively. Of the rest, most are embedded systems which couldn't
care less about LSB anyway. The few remaining dists include Debian, and
all support rpm as an option, making it a de facto standard.
Sure, dpkg is superior in several ways. Ways that don't really matter to
LSB's purpose. And besides, while everyone can install rpms already, most
systems can't install debs. The choice is pretty clear. It'd already be
pretty simple to install packages built for LSB on Debian. I expect it
will become simpler still. For the most part, it doesn't concern us.
Most LSB compliant packages will be non-free software anyway, so who
really cares one way or another? May make the guys at Loki rest a little
easier I suppose. *shrug*
I'd suggest focusing your energy on the real flaws in LSB, like that it
has broken compliancy suite which botches versioned symbol testing rather
nicely and (last time I looked) lacked things ways to make LSB complaint
packages which need a web browser or OpenGL or something installed that
you can't make mandatory for all systems.. These problems are far more of
a concern than whether or not the silly things come in deb format or not.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@d2dc.net> Free software developer
* Dry-ice can't code his way out of a paper bag
<Coderjoe> dry-ice: int main() { ExitPaperBag(); return 0; }
<Knghtbrd> Is that how that's done then? *takes notes*
Attachment:
pgpyz59idQqsS.pgp
Description: PGP signature