Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
Sure it *can* do rpm, but my question is *should* we encourage the use
of rpm. One of Debian's main strength is in its packaging. The
reliability of apt-get, the thorough testing a package goes through to
make it into stable, etc. Do we really want to encourage people going
around and installing rpms on their systems all the time when more
appropriate debian packages are already out there?
I would much prefer the LSB to support .deb as an alternative then to
have the rpm support provided by Debian be what "squeaks" it by for
certification. After all, if you're getting support from an LSB
certified tech they might just say "install this rpm..." rather then
know the more appropriate solution for debian (which might just be "grab
this deb from the archive").
Todd
On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 02:17, Alex Borges (lex) wrote:
> El mié, 09-10-2002 a las 21:03, Todd Charron escribió:
> > If I recall correctly part of the LSB requires using the rpm package
> > format... if that's a requirement preventing debian from being certified
> > i'm not too sure i'm interested in the LSB...
>
> apt-get install rpm ....
>
> I dont know what all this fuss is about... probably noone has gotten
> together to submit debian to the necesary process for certification....
> same thing happens with linux and posix, didnt stop it at all
> though..... more, the oposite, unixes are trying to see if they are
> linux compliant....so lets wait and see how it goes shall we?
>
> If u install the LSB packages, youll see debian can run all the tests
> the lsb provides. I dont care if vendors wont support it, i support
> it....more business for me.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Todd
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 21:21, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > Dear Joey,
> > >
> > > ----------------------------
> > > This package provides an implementation of version 1.1.0 of the Linux
> > > Standard Base for Debian on the Intel x86 architecture with the Linux
> > > kernel. Future revisions may support the LSB on additional architectures
> > > and kernels.
> > >
> > > The intent of this package is to provide a best current practice way of
> > > installing and running LSB packages on Debian GNU/Linux. Its presence does
> > > not imply that we believe that Debian fully complies with the Linux
> > > Standard Base, and should not be construed as a statement that Debian is
> > > LSB-compliant.
> > > ----------------------------
> > >
> > > That does not address what I was talking about. _EVEN IF_ Debian had a
> > > hack or such which allowed it to appear compatible/compliant, it isn't
> > > certified, is it? And back to my original topic... if it isn't officially
> > > compliant, vendors won't support it.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Joey Hess" <joeyh@debian.org>
> > > To: <debian-isp@lists.debian.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:48 AM
> > > Subject: Re: LSB and Debian, Commercial perspective
> > >
> > > Jason Lim wrote:
> > > > What are your thoughts on this?
> > >
> > > I think you should perhaps apt-get install lsb and read the
> > > README.Debian.
> > >
> > > --
> > > see shy jo
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
> > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> >
> --
> Alex (Lex) Borges
> Software Engineer
> Step One Group
> www.sogrp.com
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: