Re: next debian stable ?

[Kevin McKinley <ronin2@bellatlantic.net>]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:48:48 -0600
bob@proulx.com (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
> Debian.
> 
> 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
was intentional).

Kevin