Re: LSB
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That's actually not true. dpkg and rpm do not define dependencies, they
> allow packages to specify them.
That's not strictly true. Rpm does not (last I checked) allow
dependancies of the form: foo | bar | baz. No boolean OR.
It might be possible to shoehorn such a thing into the metadata field
rpm uses for dependancies, but the package manager would think you were
on drugs.
--
see shy jo
Reply to:
- References:
- Re: LSB
- From: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net>