Re: LSB bastards
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> But the resulting .deb when used with dpkg will be non-conformant at
> least.. Aside from the standard troubles with .rpm conversions (file
> depends! Ick!)
Indeed, but I don't believe the lsb allows any dependancies in lsb
packages except the dep on "lsb", and (perhaps, standard unclear), on
other lsb-* packages.
> the version comparison function is different, we don't do
> versioned provides
Doubt these things are allowed of LSB packages. You seem to be confusing
LSB packages with full-featured packages..
> our semantics for dependencies on virtual packages are
> different
The LSB is not entirely clear about this. All it says is:
If a package includes "Provides" it must only provide a virtual
package name which is registered to that application.
Nothing about versioned provides.
> we have different installation order rules
Packages may not depend on the order in which scripts are executed
(pre-install, pre-uninstall, &c), when doing
an upgrade.
Crazy, but there it is.
> specified by the LSB the rpm 'lets install foo 1.0 *AND* foo 1.1 at the
> same time' trick is supported - we don't do that either.
I'm unsure if the LSB mandates that. After all, it says,
The LSB does not specify the interface to the tools used to manipulate
LSB conformant packages.
Anyway, even if it turns out it does, I suspect I can make alien hack
around it if I really have to. Just always put the version number in the
package name...
> The amusing thing is that in some respects RPM 4 is non-compliant too.
> It's just a really particularly stupid specification.
Yes, it is.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: