Re: LSB

[Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net>]

Previously Chad Miller wrote:
> Perhaps the ``good and strict [dependancy] policies'' could be part of
> the LSB, too.  

No. The LSB defines a standard system which ISVs should be able to
rely on. As such LSB says there has to be a single `lsb' entity a
package can depend on which indicates a system is fully LSB complient.

ISVs should not have to deal with the details of a distribution and
make sure all their dependencies are correct: we should make their
life as simple as possible (without compromising the quality of our
own system of course) and give them a simple and clean interface.

> A package name registry at the LSB would be nice, so alienated RPMs could
> be _cleanly_ used.  (Using RPMs right now is akin to roulette.ru .)

LANANA is going to take care of that.

Wichert. 

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________
 /       Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool     \
| wichert@wiggy.net                   http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |