Re: next debian stable ?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: next debian stable ?
- From: Kevin McKinley <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 11:51:43 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20030430164848.GA17381@misery.proulx.com>
- References: <20030429125444.2F9581800D8@smtp-2.hotpop.com> <20030429140711.GD479@gandalf> <3EAEC38C.email@example.com> <20030429194907.GE8469@incanus.net> <3EAEEDB3.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20030430001127.GI8469@incanus.net> <3EAF2DA7.email@example.com> <20030430033630.GM8469@incanus.net> <20030430095026.GP2892@ursine.dyndns.org> <20030430164848.GA17381@misery.proulx.com>
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:48:48 -0600
firstname.lastname@example.org (Bob Proulx) wrote:
> > Don't count on it. LSB dictates packages be done in RPM instead of
> > something a bit more neutral like tarballs.
> Actually it still helps immensely. Because then the conversion
> program 'alien' knows what it needs to support and can do a good job
> of it. Alien works very well on LSB compliant rpms. RPMs that give
> trouble are the ones which are both not compliant and poorly written.
> There are a lot of those. So pushing LSB is still a Good Thing for
> LSB levels the playing field between the different distros. Otherwise
> people really would need to target a specific distro for their
> software. In that setting you can guess that the one that starts with
> the largest mindshare would win regardless of technical merits. It
> would completely lock out any newer startups. Support the LSB.
Yes and no. Your point about specifications for RPM is a good one. But it
would have been better yet if LSB simply said "packages must have/provide
the following ..." and left the package format open.
By specifying RPM the LSB did *not* level the playing field. It tilted that
field towards RPM packaging (which is away from Debian, and I believe that